I have looked back over my posts with you. I do not see the word undetectable except in your mentioning it and in reference to you mentioning it.
As I just said, it was your description of the concentric circles that led me to believe you were talking about undetectable phenomena. You have an outer circle that is all of reality, and then you have a circle inside that that is only what "man CAN observe, measure, test and validate." I interpreted you to mean that the outer portion of the outer circle was undetectable phenomena.
I simply want to know if there is anything which science agrees is real but that it also agrees cannot be studied using the scientific method.
Since we can only establish that something is real by observing it, I don't think any such thing exists.
Black holes were hypothesized to exist long before there was any possibility of observational evidence, but that was a technological limitation. Naturally, in the absence of evidence there was no agreement within science that they were real. But once the technological limitations were overcome observational evidence accumulated within just a few decades sufficient to form a consensus that they're real.
But it seems that we can answer questions about design. For example, none of these would give us any real trouble:
(a) Did ancient Egyptians design the Great Pyramid? (b) Did ancient Greeks design owls? (c) Did I design the Taj Mahal? (d) Did Ustad Ahmad Lahauri design the Taj Mahal? (e) Did pandas design goats? (f) Do people design automobiles? (g) Did someone design the Willendorf Venus?
... etc, etc. All without whatever an objective science of ideas would be if anyone could think of one to your liking; even without that, we can give definitive answers to questions about intelligent design, so why can't we do the same to questions about Intelligent Design with capital letters? Is this not just special pleading?
I have respect for evolutionists in the sense that I find them to be thorough people, investigative people, intelligent people, as I do find atheists also.
And I still stand by that mike. (I know my comments seem like they are towards people but they're not, I argue AGAINST what you guys believe, and I argue against it with firey determination, but that says nothing about you guys, on a personal level.)
I think a little addition, in regards to, "is there an argument for design", I would say again that it is more about assessing what known-designs are. It strikes me there is a redundant definition of design, and a genuine one.
The "design" definition used by evolutionists, tends to strike me as something like this; If you saw someone make it..
I am not arguing a strawman, I just think by implication, this is going to be a weak definition but it is the definition I "sense" is being made.
So then what are we saying then, that of known-designs such as cars, that we can't tell they're designed unless we know from history a designer? That is definitely wrong.
No but rather, to define design, you look at the elements of what makes something designed that you already know to be designed. What you will find is a list that lifeforms match on each level.
The list is:
- specifically constructed with a goal (Eye-sight,bones for girders, so forth) - Materials that are universally common and are nearly 100% of the time, not moulded into relationships on their own. (metal in cars, same in lifeforms) - Aesthetics or symmetry, neat packages. (helicopters, Hover-flies) - Information. (DNA, or Binary in computers) - Contingency plans. (blood clotting, eye-lids, repairing of skin/bones, immune system, need I go on. Or a windscreen-wipers in cars)
As you can see, "refutation" is pointless, those things simply are factual. Yes - we can conclude intelligent design ordinarily, therefore the only reason to NOT conclude it will be an ulterior motive such as a desire for God to not exist within the individual.
We see that with lifeforms, everything matches in design, the only difference is that the design is far greater than human design, which is why there is a field of science called Biomimetics. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
If we look at PARTICULAR designs, then how amazing those designs are, can't be fully expressed in words, after all, a Giraffe starts it's life as a blastocyst, a small spherical cellular blob, and so did Dreadnought-osaurus
I think you have to PAUSE and just contemplate that, before listening to the likes of Dawkins and his RLN, I mean just think of it for a moment, a Giraffe starts out as a small spherical blob, with no bones, brain, ligaments, and will end up a Giraffe, if that "isn't" miraculous then please tell me what would qualify as miraculous?. Can you imagine if someone invented a car that could regenerate itself? Remember that caption? "Einstein was here", well whoever made a car to do that would be Einstein X 50, so if it takes Einstein X 50 to create something that excellent, then logically it takes the same with the actual design of the Giraffe.
There are no genuine reasons against what I say - all you can do is say, "but evolution" - which might work for you, but an endless appeal to a mindless process nobody ever witnessed, doesn't work for me, friends.
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
That packs a lot of steps together, and it can be drawn out better (imho) in chart form:
Once the results have been replicated by others the hypothesis is considered a theory, and is accepted as a valid explanation of the evidence, but testing of the theory does not stop. Note that validation testing of the hypothesis\theory does not, cannot, prove it is true, rather the testing fails to prove that it is false, so attempts to prove it false continue
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.
An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. ...
The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. ...
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. ... The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."
Again, we see that the scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that produces consistent positive (valid) results, and again we see that the hypothesis rests on cases of objective empirical evidence where the derived hypothesis is known to be valid.
This process rules out invalid concepts because their predicted results don't match the test results.
Take the age of the earth as an example:
We can observe that some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and thus we can start with an hypothesize that the earth is 6,000 years old.
So we revise the hypothesis to the age of the earth is 900,000 years old (in 2014)
And we can continue in this way until we come to the radiometric data that shows the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old.
You can also look up historical estimates of the age of the earth and see a similar process going on as new information was found for the age of the earth. The currently accepted age of the earth is 4.55 billion years, however this is subject to modification if new information shows an older age or invalidates the current accepted age.
The "design" definition used by evolutionists, tends to strike me as something like this; If you saw someone make it..
No, of course not.
- specifically constructed with a goal (Eye-sight,bones for girders, so forth)
Aaaand there you go committing petitio principii.
I think you have to PAUSE and just contemplate that, before listening to the likes of Dawkins and his RLN, I mean just think of it for a moment, a Giraffe starts out as a small spherical blob, with no bones, brain, ligaments, and will end up a Giraffe, if that "isn't" miraculous then please tell me what would qualify as miraculous?
Re: front end loading -- all the way back to the beginning
This conforms to the evidence so I would conclude this was the design yes.
Good, we are in agreement on this.
yes yes and yes. However, I do not argue against intervention. It would certainly be possible within my posit, however I have seen no credible evidence to conclude that it has occurred. Further activity by god/s if you want to call it that is not necessary, but then again it is not impossible either.
Indeed. If there were intervention then we should see elements of design, such as borrowed traits and broken nesting of hierarchies. As these have not been observed to date leaves the concept untested, ie unknown.
I do not know enough about science to offer an opinion of whether science should investigate how but not why. If the field of science decides it needs to know the why I would have no problem with that.
It's not so much deciding it needs to know as it is the limitations on the scientific method. Can we test and replicate why an artist chose a particular color for a painting or to distort a shape in a particular way to arrive at a work of art (think Van Gogh and "Starry Night")? What we can test and replicate is how the canvas is made and stretched, how the paints are made, how the colors are achieved, how they are applied, the thickness of the paint and the shape and condition of the brush, the force used to apply the paint, etc ... and in the end we can't test and replicate why some paintings are appealing, even when severely distorted from what is seen and observed.
I am not sure exactly where you are going here. Are we talking about the intent of the original design? Design toward a specific predetermined outcome v something else?
Basically, if we cannot tell that design is involved then we can't know whether design is involved or not -- it is in the unknown category rather than valid or invalid.
In my belief system, The Tao continuously creates itself. Intent is not spoken of much. I suppose it could be creating through nothing but front-end design, or using infrequent manipulation as well or using frequent manipulation as well. Taoists don't speculate on that very much in my reading. In fact, there is a warning in Taoism to not think too much on the Tao itself or on creation as this can drive you crazy.
Interesting. I like this, and consider that it compares well to particles popping in and out of existence or changing from one particle to another in quantum mechanics; the universe is in constant flux at the quantum level, reinventing itself moment by moment.
interesting. I think it's a good analogy that fits in my cosmic model. nothing in my system requires specific organisms as intended
Re: front end loading -- all the way back to the beginning
Can we test and replicate why an artist chose a particular color for a painting or to distort a shape in a particular way to arrive at a work of art
Yes we can investigate such thing scientifically. Remember that not all scientific investigations require us to replicate at a whim. Cosmology? Geology? Paleontology?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
If it would not be too much to ask, could you provide me an explicit list of any and all a priori assumptions used by science RE as to what is real or not.
I have looked back over my posts with you. I do not see the word undetectable except in your mentioning it and in reference to you mentioning it.
Percy writes:
As I just said, it was your description of the concentric circles that led me to believe you were talking about undetectable phenomena. You have an outer circle that is all of reality, and then you have a circle inside that that is only what "man CAN observe, measure, test and validate." I interpreted you to mean that the outer portion of the outer circle was undetectable phenomena.
Well ok then. When I read what seemed (to me) to be a statement of fact that I had claimed the non-inclusive portion of the outer circle to be undetectable phenomena, I was reading instead your belief that I was leading you to this conclusion. Is this correct? If that is accurate, then my answer is that no, I was not leading you to believe that all outer circle only phenomena are undetectable.
I simply want to know if there is anything which science agrees is real but that it also agrees cannot be studied using the scientific method.
Percy writes:
Since we can only establish that something is real by observing it, I don't think any such thing exists.
Is your statement "Since we can only establish that something is real by observing it" an a priori assumption that anything that cannot be observed is not real?
Percy writes:
Black holes were hypothesized to exist long before there was any possibility of observational evidence, but that was a technological limitation. Naturally, in the absence of evidence there was no agreement within science that they were real. But once the technological limitations were overcome observational evidence accumulated within just a few decades sufficient to form a consensus that they're real.
This reference to the black holes existence hypothesis seems (to me) to answer my above question to the negative, but I do not wish to put words in your mouth.
But you said that outer portion of your outer circle represents reality that can't be observed. If you can't observe it in some way, then by what means are you detecting it?
Is your statement "Since we can only establish that something is real by observing it" an a priori assumption that anything that cannot be observed is not real?
No. For example, observing a black swan is evidence that black swans are real. But never observing a black swan is not evidence that they're not real. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This reference to the black holes existence hypothesis seems (to me) to answer my above question to the negative, but I do not wish to put words in your mouth.
Establishing that black holes exist is an example of how science really works. I thought you might find a real world example of science in action helpful.
I know you excluded the previous message quotes to avoid producing one what would be much longer yet.
However, I am having a very hard time jumping into these things mid-quote and figuring them out. I will go back to the original post and do the best I can but it will take me a while.
I've edited Message 428 to add background quotes for clarity.
Re: valid invalid unknown ... and confidence in ideas
If it would not be too much to ask, could you provide me an explicit list of any and all a priori assumptions used by science RE as to what is real or not.
The only a priori assumption that is needed for science to work is that the objective empirical evidence represents reality.
Once you make that assumption you can observe the objective empirical evidence and form hypothesis about how it works or what it represents, and then you can test that hypothesis against the objective empirical evidence or use it to uncover new objective empirical evidence. This forms a basis that can be built on by further hypothesis through logic
If hypothesis A has not been invalidated then hypothesis B may be valid ... and then test THAT hypothesis against objective empirical evidence. Now hypothesis B is in double jeopardy for falsification of either hypothesis.
We can also talk about confidence levels for different ideas
We can have high confidence that the invalid (falsified) ideas are in fact wrong, as we have explicit evidence of it being wrong, so we know it is false.
We can have moderate confidence in validated ideas that have not been falsified and which appear to work as predicted. The more these ideas work as predicted and are not falsified the more confidence we can have that they may be true.
We can only have low to zero confidence in ideas that are untested or untestable, the unknowns. We can't say that they are right or wrong, just that we don't know.
I've posted this elsewhere before:
Note that this scale relies on the scientific method to reach levels III and IV, and both of those require objective empirical evidence. In addition, each level leads to the next higher level as more evidence and information becomes available and stricter standards of testing are applied (ie, are falsifiable).
Another distinction that you can make between II and III is that any observation is corroborated\tested\replicated by others.
If it would not be too much to ask, could you provide me an explicit list of any and all a priori assumptions used by science RE as to what is real or not.
The only things ruled out a priori are logical contradictions, e.g a four-sided triangle. And in fact, the correct way to look at this is not to say that we are saying "A priori, four-sided triangles can't exist" but "A priori, anything can exist, but whatever it is we would never describe it as a four-sided triangle: if it has four sides, we would not call it triangular; if it was triangular, we would not say that it had four sides."
So how do you test the reasons why Picasso painted the face blue and mangled the face, hands and body?
And don't confuse this with how he did it.
Now if I was asked my opinion on why Picasso did it, I would reply that I don't know the mind of Picasso, I can't measure his thoughts.
And if I was asked my opinion of how Picasso did it, I would reply that he drew lines and filled in colors with a paint brush, with paint that was on his palette. I could even say how he mixed colors to get to particular shades ...
... but I could not begin to hazard any kind of test or hypothesis for why that particular shade was chosen, nor do I see how anyone - other than Picasso - could answer that question, no matter how much they studied the painting, painting in general, the artist and artists in general.
Remember that not all scientific investigations require us to replicate at a whim. Cosmology? Geology? Paleontology?
Remember that not everything is open to scientific investigations. Untestable ideas? Unfalsifiable concepts?
Remember that not all concepts are scientific. Astrology? Religion?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
