Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 325 (592257)
11-19-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 1:57 AM


Re: Design vs. non-design
What is your rule of evidence for distinquishing something as being designed verses something that is simply a naturalistic cause? At what point will your answer be provable?
Design is 'naturalistic'. If we agree there is design in biology then we just need to identify the designer. Just about all scientists that have studied the subject have come to the conclusion that the evidence points to the designer as being natural selection and perhaps a few other more complex ideas.
Intelligent Design's theory is that it is the product of 'an intelligence'. It so far has failed to provide a hypothesis for implementation (ie., no explanation for how the design was/is implemented). All we have is 'an intelligence did it'. Let's go back to the days of Paley, telling us about his watch and how it was made by a watchmaker with forethought and someone retorts:
quote:
A blind watchmaker did it!
Paley would look at such a person and say
quote:
Do you believe that an entity could exist that without any forethought managed to piece together a watch? What evidence is there for this counterintuitve creature? I know that humans have forethought {cites evidence} and that they can design tools {cites evidence} and that further they have fingers and other designed tools which can create watches {evidence} and they have a need/desire for watches {evidence} and that they have in fact created watches {evidence} previously.
And this is why the argument from design is not a scientific theory. The more advanced Intelligent Design argument is a response to a successful counter-theory. However, it is not a theory about Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design theory is: "The theory of evolution cannot explain all of biology". Which I'm inclined to believe is true. However - its proponents then make the illogical leap that if evolution cannot explain all of biology and if evolution undermines the argument from design then the argument from design must be true if evolutionary biologists can be shown to have failed to explain (or even if the disagree in explanations) some small piece of the world in any way.
Intelligent Design further falls foul of science by presenting examples of biology that evolution can't explain when in fact it can. Or by using hokey mathematics.
So basically - incorrect facts, poor logic, nonsense maths, and lack of any positive evidence pretty much covers the important features of why Intelligent Design does not follow the scientific method.
ID might look at things, develop arguments and draw conclusions - but that doesn't mean it follows the scientific method.
Let me remind you that this is all assuming that design exists. The crucial sticking point is the 'Intelligent' part.
We are dealing with methods and whether they are scientific in approach, not conclusions
Drawing conclusions is a key part of the method. If we weren't talking about drawing conclusions then all you'd be trying to say is that both use empiricism. But science is a particular suite of methods of reasoning to infer conclusions from empirically derived evidence. Where ID falls down is in the reasoning and inferring conclusions part of things.
What besides the categories of Observation, experimentation, evaluation, and prediction does the SM use that we do not?
We could start with:
Falsification {High risk. ID takes no risks, no discoverable evidence will be a problem, "The designer designed it that way for its own inscrutable reasons" will always serve as a get out clause for all possible observations}.
Parsimony {Postulates a being for which no evidence exists, except for the fact that ID supposes it does}
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 1:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2010 11:54 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 3:25 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 117 of 325 (592429)
11-20-2010 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 3:25 AM


Re: Design vs. non-design
Design is Not a theory based on the idea that it is of an intelligence, at its outset.
Intelligent Design is such a theory. I dare you to dispute this.
The conclusion of design, is not initially necessary to fromulate a logical observation and deduction, concerning such matters.
The conclusion of design was accepted I was very very careful to say this...twice. "If we agree there is design...", and "Let me remind you that this is all assuming that design exists. The crucial sticking point is the 'Intelligent' part.". It doesn't matter how we arrive at design - the key point is getting from 'there is design' to 'it was implemented by an intelligent agent" which ID has yet to demonstrate using the rules of science.
Much of your reply is as if when I said "Intelligent Design" I said 'design'.
If you want to have a discussion, you will need to address what I said. Your post is filled with misapprehensions as to what I was saying. I'm persuaded that you don't want to discuss the shortcomings of INTELLIGENT design as a scientific theory (ie., how intelligent design utilises scientific reasoning to support the theory) and just want to talk about how design is practically self-evident again.
If you want dispute any of my claims rather than engage in posturing like with "you fellas have so clouded the simple term of science" then I'll be happy to continue spending time on this debate. I have already given an opening explanation as to why I think ID falls short. Show why my objections do not apply, anything else is unnecessary rhetoric I'm afraid.
we observe that actual physical evidence and deduce its conclusions logiacally
As I explained, this isn't sufficient to be science and either
A inferences IDers make are not logically valid
B the physical evidence is different than claimed by IDers.
If you'd like to provide a counter-example of ID methodology in practice that does not fall into this trap, that might be a start...
Again: Just because science uses empiricism (examining evidence) and reasoning that doesn't mean that using empiricism and reasoning is science. It is a specific kind of empiricism and reasoning. It is your claim that ID uses the same rules of empiricism and reasoning: Show us an example. If you really don't know how, I'll show you a scientific example to help you along.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 3:25 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 10:23 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 137 of 325 (592498)
11-20-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 10:23 AM


Intelligent design vs unintelligent design
I never disagreed that it was not a theory or a conclusion Mod, yet it is seperate from the Method of ID itself, until it reaches an unobservable conclusion, at which point it becomes a theory
But when I was talking about Intelligent Design you complained
quote:
Design is Not a theory based on the idea that it is of an intelligence
I replied that this may be the case, but Intelligent Design is based on the idea of an intelligence.
I did not suggest you questioned its status as a theory.
It matters greatly HOW we arrive at any conclusion, especially if we are going to call it science
Yes, that's what I've been saying. And ID doesn't follow the same method of 'how' that science does, as I described and you have not addressed.
Your persuasion is misdireted and misguided. back there it was whether the IDM follows the SM in its approach. the reason no one will address the simple issue is that it casts a bad light on the SMs complicated approach
I did tackle it, and you started talking about Design Theory not Intelligent Design theory. Feel free to go back to my Message 80 and address the parts were I showed how IDM is different than SM. Might I equally hypothesise that the reason you won't address the central thesis in Message 80 is because it casts a bad light on IDs pseudoscientific method?
Here is where you are missing the point. When I describe the basics of scientific investigation, ie, observation, evaluation, experimentation, construction, prediction, etc, you are not justified in assuming these are inferences.
Scientific evaluation is done by inference
Predictions are inferences that follow if a theory is true but which have yet to be empirically confirmed.
So yes - I'm perfectly justified in calling these inferences. There are certain inferenes which are allowed in science, and others which do not follow SM. ID is in the latter camp, as described in Message 80.
Mod the physical evidence cannot be different inthis instance if we use the same rules and tools
Unfortanately it is the claims of physical evidence that differ. They claim to have evidence when that evidence doesn't actually exist. Or cannot be scientifically inferred from to derive their conclusion of intelligent design.
Example: Proposed evidence for ID is that evolution cannot explain the complexity of the mammalian eye.
This is not evidence because evolution can explain the complexity of the mammalian eye
See?
Now - to support your position you should do as I requested in Message 117
quote:
If you'd like to provide a counter-example of ID methodology in practice that does not fall into this trap, that might be a start...
So Dawn, provide an example observation, evaluation, experimentation, construction, prediction that might occur in the investigation of ID. This will enable to compare the way this is done with the way it is done in science in general to see if you are correct. You've drastically failed to so far do so - and I predict you'll fall back to talking about design rather than Intelligent Design should you ever attempt to do this. Do you want me to show an example of how it is done in real science?
At the moment, all I can do is compare the IDM I know (which is not the same as SM) until you instruct me an IDM that is the same as SM. So instruct me.
Here are some of the salient points from Message 80 in case you have forgotten them
quote:
Intelligent Design's theory is that it is the product of 'an intelligence'. It so far has failed to provide a hypothesis for implementation (ie., no explanation for how the design was/is implemented). All we have is 'an intelligence did it'.
Evolutionary biology has a hypothesis for how the design came about and how it was designed. ID doesn't, and insists it doesn't need to. But until it has a theory about how the abstract 'design' became a physical phenomenon - they don't have a physical theory.
quote:
Intelligent Design theory is: "The theory of evolution cannot explain all of biology". Which I'm inclined to believe is true. However - its proponents then make the illogical leap that if evolution cannot explain all of biology and if evolution undermines the argument from design then the argument from design must be true if evolutionary biologists can be shown to have failed to explain (or even if the disagree in explanations) some small piece of the world in any way.
quote:
Intelligent Design further falls foul of science by presenting examples of biology that evolution can't explain when in fact it can. Or by using hokey mathematics.
quote:
So basically - incorrect facts, poor logic, nonsense maths, and lack of any positive evidence pretty much covers the important features of why Intelligent Design does not follow the scientific method.
ID might look at things, develop arguments and draw conclusions - but that doesn't mean it follows the scientific method.
You know why I think IDM and SM differ. Show me why they are the same, do not assert it, but show it.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 10:23 AM Dawn Bertot 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