|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This thread begins with Message 15 --Admin.
Subbie had a good idea in his suggestion that we get out of his thread and discuss these issues in another thread I suggest a thread that demonstrates that in Principle and Application, the ID method of scientific investigation, is just as detailed and involved as science, as is the so-called, "scientific method" in establishing Facts and Conclusions concerning the physical world Focusing initially on the basics and fundamentals of any type of investigation in establishing facts. Also, what are the total amount of terms (ie. observation, experimentation, etc) one can throw at an investigation before it becomes exclusive. Where would the scientific method in general terms, leave the ID method in the dust How on both sides the parties are limited in thier conclusions It is easy enough to demonstrate that a select group of "scientists" have made, what is very simple very complicated, in an effort to exclude any understanding of things and the conclusions of things, except thier own interpretations IMV, the thread will be worth it, but it will be short lived, because my proposition is so simple, tons of posts will not be necessary to establish this fact Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Change title Edited by Admin, : Hide content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
ID (Intelligent Design) is the theory that the apparent design in nature is in reality actual design by intelligent entities. On the other hand, IDM (Intelligent Design Methodology) is a term you invented yourself that describes the methods used to develop this theory, and you defined it as being synonymous with SM (Scientific Methodology). ID and IDM are not synonyms. One is a theory, the other is a method. I suppose a good thread then, would be: Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thread copied here from the Does ID follow the scientific method? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
DB writes:
I am really not sure that there is any point, but - here goes... Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method Please describe what you think ID methodology is.Please describe what you think the scientific method is. With these 2 definitions we should be able to clearly see any differences / similarities. Edited by Panda, : See next post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Panda,
I deleted the discussion messages in this promoted version of the thread. Please see the original discussion over at Does ID follow the scientific method?. In Message 3 Dawn says the the two methods are the same:
Dawn Bertot in Message 3 of the original thread proposal writes: In general any theory or ideology that attempts to explain the physical world will have the same basic tenets of fact gathering. I will suggest what I believe to be the basics in this connection and then we will see if those can be be built upon, so as to completely distinquish the scientific method (SM hereafter refered to in this thread) from the IDM (Intelligent Design method) It is my contention that these basics will remain the same upon investigation, so as not to be distinguished from the IDM These basics are of course: Observation, evaluation, experimentation (tests), corroboration, determination, predictions (if you will) and of course conclusions In other words, Dawn believes that ID accepts the scientific method, and this thread is for exploring whether ID actually follows this method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Great! Now that Dawn has finally claimed that ID has a methodology, she can no longer refuse to answer the simple, fundamental questions about such a methodology. She has to finally answer the question that she has been refusing to answer for so long: What is the methodology for detecting and determining design in nature?
Furthermore, she can no longer try to take refuge in philosophical double-talk, because she now claims that ID uses the scientific method. Therefore, this methodology for detecting and determining design must comply with the scientific method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
DB writes:
The start seems like a good place to start: These basics are of course: Observation, evaluation, experimentation (tests), corroboration, determination, predictions (if you will) and of course conclusionsPlease describe an example of an observation made by IDM. Also, I do not currently understand how 'determination' is linked to the scientific method.Please ellaborate on what you mean by 'determination'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design in nature?
And it must give accurate results or it is useless. ... ...this methodology for detecting and determining design must comply with the scientific method. So we need a set of rules for determining whether an object is designed or natural, and those rules must provide accurate results. We can't just use, "I know design when I see it!" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
If we use Behe as an example then it becomes apparent that the IDM is different from the SM.
Behe claims that in order to arrive at the conclusion of design we first rule out natural mechanisms. For example, Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems can not be produced by naturally occuring evolutionary mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. Therefore, intelligent design had to be involved by process of elimination. (note: whether or not irreducibly complex systems can evolve has nothing to do with the actual method that ID is using) In this method there is no positive evidence in support of the proposed mechanism. Instead, theories are tested by elimination of alternate explanations. This differs dramatically from the scientific method where theories are directly tested using positive evidence. For example, using the SM scientists did not arrive at the theory of relativity just because the only other explanation (Newtonian gravity) failed to explain observations such as the precession in Mercury's orbit. There needed to be positive evidence that the theory of relativity was correct, and that evidence was found in the form of bent starlight in warped spacetime. It would seem to me that Dawn has been describing this same method as used by Behe, but not used by scientists to construct the theory of relativity. It is implied that "order" can not be produced by non-intelligent processes, therefore order is evidence of design. However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Dawn Bertot in message 15 writes: I suppose a good thread then, would be: Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions So any argument, in this thread, that attempts to discredit or change the Scientific Method will automatically invalidate DB's assertion that ID follows the SM. I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained. Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given. What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them.
If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them. If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory. Boards back up, will get back to it as quick as I can Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So any argument, in this thread, that attempts to discredit or change the Scientific Method will automatically invalidate DB's assertion that ID follows the SM. At no point have i ever indicated that the SM was invalid as a method. And why would i want to change said method
I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained. Before you get to eager to see what a hypothsis of ID is, remember that Percy made it very clear that this thread is NOT about ID, due the the fact that it is a conclusion. What we are discusiing here is IDs methodology in comparison with the SM, to see if they jive. Now I am happy to discuss at someother point the hypothesis of ID if Percy allows it. First off ID, like to thank Percy for allowing this thread, because he deemed it against his Jetter budgement, but thanks anyway As indicated above there is a problem right off the bat, lets make sure that this distinctions stays clear, unless at someother point percy allows the discussionof conclusions Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them. Again, no hypothesis, just a method to determine if ID is a possibility, derived from a scientific approach We will be looking at IDs methods and SMs methods Now, what is off limits I believe, is the conclusions of Macro-evolution and design itself, because both are conclusions, as ICANT was trying to demonstrate in the other thread Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Behe claims that in order to arrive at the conclusion of design we first rule out natural mechanisms. For example, Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems can not be produced by naturally occuring evolutionary mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. Im not sure why he ciomes to this conlcusion, so I cant address that aspect
In this method there is no positive evidence in support of the proposed mechanism. Instead, theories are tested by elimination of alternate explanations. This differs dramatically from the scientific method where theories are directly tested using positive evidence. this what I believe the IDM demonstrates as well. I sont know why he says that so I cannot adrress it
It would seem to me that Dawn has been describing this same method as used by Behe, Not exacally
It is implied that "order" can not be produced by non-intelligent processes, therefore order is evidence of design. However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM. In this discuyssion it would be irrelevant whether order cannot be produced by NONINTP, since order is an indication of design to begin with
However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM. Thats the point though, you cannot test a conclusion, the likes of which, where the evidence is not now available. In both methods we can only use our best judgement, with the best possible approaches, correct Dawn Bertot Edited by Admin, : Add missing quote codes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024