|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread copied here from the Does ID follow the scientific method? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Coyote writes: ...how one can reliably determine whether a particular item is designed or not. Because I'm concerned about keeping this thread on topic I'd like to call attention to this question and point out that it is only on topic to the extent that it helps illustrate how the science of ID uses the scientific method, in this case to identify the principles for detecting design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Dawn,
I'm still catching up in this thread, but let me respond to this now before reading the rest of the thread:
Dawn Bertot writes: We are dealing with methods and whether they are scientific in approach, not conclusions design is the conclusion of a scientific approach, not provable in the same way a view that only natural causes are the cause this is why I said earlier science minds make bad philosophers, logicians and debaters. Im sorry but that is true because you cannot distinguish between these two simple items In order to demonstrate that ID does actually follow the scientific method you will have to provide examples of ID actually following the scientific method. Coyote is requesting that you show how ID followed the scientific method to reach the conclusion of design, and addressing this issue is precisely what this thread is about. You don't have to use the example of concluding design if you don't want to, but you are going to have to find at least one example of ID actually following the scientific method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Dawn,
Phrases that you've never been able to define are starting to creep into your messages. Until you successfully define terms like "rules of evidence" and "order and law" you cannot use them in this thread or any other thread, except threads for the express purpose of you defining those terms. Do not attempt to define what you mean by these terms in this thread. This thread already has a topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Please demonstrate why my observations of nature, my experiments, my evaluations and my predictions of what nature will reveal, are not science In this thread you have not as yet provided any observations, experiments, evaluations or predictions. Please provide at least one example of ID following the scientific method by describing the original hypothesis, the experimental framework, the observations, the analysis, the predictions, the validation of those predictions, and the theory resulting from generalizing what was learned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Hi Dawn,
Bluejay's request to provide examples of ID using various parts of the scientific method is identical to the requests I made in messages earlier in the thread. Illustrating how ID uses the scientific method is the very raison d'tre of this thread. I will not speculate as to why you have not been addressing the thread's topic, but I'm taking two actions:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread copied here from the Does ID follow the scientific method? thread in the Is It Science? forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It's hard to get suspended in the Free For All forum, but some members seem to have that as their goal by posting persistently off-topic.
I'm headed off to bed now, but before I start the database improvements tomorrow morning I'll check this thread and will suspend for 24 hours anyone posting off-topic after this message. I'll be indiscriminate, so evolutionists, creationists and IDists take note. The topic concerns whether ID follows the scientific method. The ID side should be providing at least one example of actual ID research following the scientific method, or at least working toward that goal. If you posted off-topic before seeing this message better click that "edit" button now!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Dawn,
The topic of this thread concerns whether ID follows the scientific method. What you need is at least one example of ID research following the scientific method. When you return, please address your discussion to the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Wow! Spectacularly off-topic. Only the fact that you've been a member less than 24 hours keeps me from suspending you for a week. See you tomorrow.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Marc9000's excerpts include hypotheses and proposed experiments and seem on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
In your earlier message you described a couple hypotheses and a couple possible experiments related to ID. Forming hypotheses and performing experiments are part of the scientific method.
But in this message you've reverted to Dawn Bertot's approach of simply asserting that ID follows the scientific method. You're arguing that this guy said this and that guy said that, but you're ignoring the central focus of the thread. Evolutionists in this thread have provided a few examples of evolution research following the scientific method, as well as some additional examples of a more general nature. These examples were provided as illustrations of what is being requested from IDists, an example or two of actual ID research following the scientific method. Supporters of ID who wish to talk about something other than examples of ID following the scientific method should not be posting to this thread. I've posted a number of messages to this thread, and I think I've been pretty clear about what is needed, and I think a number of other participants have also been pretty clear about this, particularly BlueJay. It's time to address the topic. If supporters of ID continue to post off-topic I'll just close the thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Dawn,
See my Message 120 and Message 211 where I requested that you provide an example of ID following the scientific method. I'm suspending you for 4 days. See you after Thanksgiving. In your very first message after your suspension I want you to provide responses to this list of requested information composed by Bluejay:
If you post anything else I'll just suspend you again, but for a longer period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: I responded by citing one of my examples of supportive evidence. Taq responded with the implication that the designer should be seen. I alluded to antimatter which also has never been seen, etc. Not everyone says everything the same way. Taq actually used the word observation, and he was only expressing that he feels there is a lack of evidence in support of the actual existence of a designer. If you can describe an application of the scientific method that has produced evidence for the designer then that would be on-topic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024