Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 284 of 289 (593075)
11-24-2010 3:40 AM


Yep, whenever creationists get involved they're a shining example of haughty bits of intelligent theater.

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 285 of 289 (593080)
11-24-2010 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Buzsaw
11-23-2010 10:00 PM


H 0
Hi Buzz, I just want to clear something up and please bear in mind I'm missing out a lot to keep things concise.
The null hypothesis is a very important component of the scientific methodology. I think calling the null hypothesis (H0) non-factual is not helpful.
Let me explain: when using the scientific method ones typically starts with an observation; such as Croatians are taller than English people. This is a real world observation that could be true or it could be coincidence.
I could design an experiment to test my hypothesis (H1) that there is a difference between the heights of the two peoples.
Obviously I can't measure everyones height (this would however give my a pretty conclusive answer as to whether there is a hieght difference) so I take a sample of the two peoples and assume they represent the two people reasonably accurately.
Without going into too much detail I could find that there is a difference between the height or not.
In this case my HI (hypothesis) it that there is a height difference. The H0 (null hypothesis) is that any difference is unconnected with country of origin i.e. country of origin has nothing to do with it.
Now, when I gather my data (assuming I do it correctly) I can use a set of statistics to analys the data to see if any difference in height could be attributed to country of origin or not. My efforts would be in attempting to rule out H1. If I can they my hypothesis (H1) is wrong and I have to accept H0.
To be clear I try to reject my own hypothesis (H1).
If I can't (and if I can show my that my experiement and stats hold up to scrutiny) I can say H1 has been supported (not proved, mind).
If the statistical analysis says 'the heights of these people are significantly different' we can say we reject the HO (that country of origin has nothing to do with it).
So the hypothesis is always tested against the notion that it is dead wrong.
In this case my H1 is that country of origin affects hieght. My H0 is that country of origin does not effect height.
When people talk about falsification and hypothesis they don't mean proving it wrong. They mean having a H0 that can be rejected.
I think the proble that people have with ID is that it has no H0 to reject. With ID the H1 would be that things are designed and H0 would be that things are not designed. The IDist does not attempt to choose between H1 or H0; the IDist has already concluded that H0 is wrong, by-passing the scientific methodology.
The scientist attempts to rule out his hypothesis by testing it against H0.
The IDist attempts to rule in his hypothesis by not having a H0.
This is the big difference between science and creation science and why people on this site keep saying ID isn't science.
Hope this helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Buzsaw, posted 11-23-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 289 (593087)
11-24-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Coyote
11-23-2010 10:42 PM


Re: Behe's Court ID Question
Coyote writes:
Is this what Behe meant in the Dover trial when he used a definition of science that included astrology?
This is what those opposing ID as science do. As in this trial, Behe's opponents resorted to one of the least valid examples of IDSM which is astrology. Unlike the Biblical record, astrology has no evidential legitimacy having precious little to support it. There are no credible scientists who study the scientific validity of astrology that I am aware of.
Likely what Behe meant by his answer to the court was that it could, legally, but would have no reason to include astrology. Instead of digressing he simply answered in the affirmative.
His critics took that ball and ran with it all over the Internet and science fora as you are doing.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Coyote, posted 11-23-2010 10:42 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Admin, posted 11-24-2010 8:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 287 of 289 (593090)
11-24-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dr Adequate
11-23-2010 9:28 PM


What's the Topic?
Please see my comments in Marc9000's Message 260. In his next message he gave no indication of paying any heed to the moderator request in that message.
People, the question is whether ID follows the scientific method. Primarily because of Dawn's inability to address the topic of his own thread I made a very pointed request that an example of ID following the scientific method be presented so that it can be discussed. In Message 248 I requested responses to this list of requested information composed by Bluejay:
  • An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.
  • An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.
  • An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.
  • An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.
No responses to this have been posted yet. Anything else from those taking the affirmative that ID follows the scientific method is off-topic. In my judgement, discussion of the topic has not really begun yet, and I don't think it can begin until there's a concrete example of ID research to discuss. To this point this thread is just a series of "Does to's" and "Does not's".

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 288 of 289 (593092)
11-24-2010 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Buzsaw
11-24-2010 7:54 AM


Re: Behe's Court ID Question
Buz, please stop participating in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2010 7:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 289 of 289 (593107)
11-24-2010 11:10 AM


Thread Copied to Intelligent Design Forum
Thread copied to the Does ID follow the scientific method? thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024