Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,736 Year: 3,993/9,624 Month: 864/974 Week: 191/286 Day: 107/84 Hour: 2/10

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Message 84 of 94 (737492)
09-26-2014 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by taiji2
09-26-2014 12:11 AM

Some definitions
Here are a couple of definitions to consider in your discussions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
In science there is no such thing as "intelligent laws."
Rather, scientific theories seek to explain data, including the regularities we call laws.
Those theories begin as hypotheses, which are based on data. Hypotheses are subjected to testing. Successful hypotheses survive that testing, successfully explain the data, and make predictions which are confirmed. Eventually one hypothesis emerges as the best, and becomes a theory. A theory should explain all relevant data, not be contradicted by any data, and continue to make successful predictions.
Your idea to change the names makes sense. But "intelligent laws" does not seem to be a useful change. There would have to be a vast disconnect from data leading to generalizations (laws) to [some other kind of data] leading to [intelligent] laws.
Added: You use the term "truth" but that is not a term often used by science.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source [my addition in brackets]
Edited by Coyote, : Addition

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by taiji2, posted 09-26-2014 12:11 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by taiji2, posted 09-26-2014 3:38 PM Coyote 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