Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 19 of 325 (591825)
11-16-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Admin
11-16-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Confusion Still Exists
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Admin, posted 11-16-2010 9:52 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2010 10:24 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 49 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-18-2010 9:32 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 55 of 325 (592156)
11-19-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Minnemooseus
11-18-2010 9:32 PM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
The Discovery Institute (IMO) would make a quantum leap in respectability if they clearly came out saying no more than "The intelligent design hypothesis is not compatible with young Earth creationism". That would disconnect ID from the bulk of the creationists that try to grasp onto ID in support of their ideology.
Yes, if they were actually trying to do science. But as their actions and the Wedge Document clearly show, the DI's agenda is not scientific, but rather political and social. Their opposition to evolution is for mistaken philosophical reasons (couching it as fighting materialism, though failing to understand the distinction between philosophical materialism, what they do oppose, and methodological materialism, which is what science practices out of necessity since science and the scientific method have no means to deal with the supernatural).
Their political and social agenda requires them to build the broadest support they can in the general population. They will not alienate a sizable voting block, young-earth creationists, nor can they afford to. The truth does not matter, intellectual honesty does not matter, their agenda is all that matters. Just like with YECs.
Though actually, I do seem to recall that the IDists do try to have it both ways. To the general public they will disassociate themselves from young-earth creationism, whereas to YECs they will play to that crowd. Same as the "creation-scientists" would do, disclaiming any connections to the Bible when speaking to the general public, but then being full-bore biblical when preaching to the choir. ID has separate origins from "creation science", but they have become the exact same kind of beast, practicing the exact same kinds of deceptions.
So, back to their conflating methodological materialism with philosophical materialism. Science does not include the supernatural because the scientific method cannot deal with supernaturalistically-based hypotheses. ID wants science to deal with supernaturalistically-based hypotheses. OK, so just how the frak is science supposed to do that? I had a thread, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), asking that very same question. 225 posts later, no answer -- admittedly, the last few were bumps for Dawn to join in with her own special knowledge, but no dice.
Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen?
Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design?
Dawn, both that question and my much more difficult question are fundamentally basic to incorporating ID into science. If you cannot answer those questions, then you have absolutely no case whatsoever. What is your answer?
My prediction about this topic. Dawn will continue to refuse to answer these fundamentally basic questions, or else will use bullshit responses and claim that they are the answers. And she will do her utmost to obfuscate (AKA, "muddy the waters", "baffle us with her bullshit"). Nothing will come of this topic, except to expose Dawn for having absolutely no case at all. But then we all knew that already, didn't we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-18-2010 9:32 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 3:03 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 59 of 325 (592168)
11-19-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
11-19-2010 2:14 AM


Do not forget that ID started with a high school text - even though ID does not have a real theory even now.
I respectfully disagree. ID started much earlier, possibly with Phillip E. Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial (oh frak! amazon.com only has a newer edition, but I know that that book was out by 1981, because it was named in a Nova episode that included Johnson circa 1981/1982).
However, everything else in your post was spot-on-the-mark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2010 2:14 AM PaulK has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 66 of 325 (592196)
11-19-2010 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dawn Bertot
11-19-2010 3:03 AM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Uh, excuse me, but your incoherent blatherings notwithstanding (considering even that much of what you posted are not even sentences).
EG:
Please demonstrate HOW if I employ all the basics that that is supernatural, religious or different from your method
Now just what the frak is that supposed to mean? It's not even a sentence! Others have asked you what your native language is. You have claimed to have had extensive US military experience, such that you are a retir(e). With all due respect, as a thirty-frakin'-three-year veteran facing forced retirement in one more year, how could anybody have survived in the US military with such abysmal communication skills that you exhibit? Unless one were Army -- inter-service rivalry etc fully intended.
Dawn, think about this now. You have apparently engaged in purely verbal encounters before. The problem with purely verbal exchanges is that the ability of the listeners to properly process everything that they hear is severely limited. In purely verbal encounters, you can very easily overload them with your bullshit that they cannot cope with it.
However, in a written format, you can formulate your position in a logical manner. You can show everybody the inexorible chain of logic that leads inexoribly to your conclusion. Assuming, of course, that you are able to exhibit that chain of logic ... .
Please take the opportunity to express, in a logical manner, the inexorible chain of logic that leads to your conclusion.
This is nothing new. It has existed from the very beginning. All you ever had to do was to exhibit it.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-19-2010 3:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 11-19-2010 8:02 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 100 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 1:45 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 148 of 325 (592539)
11-20-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 11:09 AM


Re: Question everything
jar writes:
You have not yet addressed the issue of how IDM uses any processes or procedures so it is impossible for use to address IDM at all.
As I pointed out back in Message 77 "You have consistently failed to tell us what method you use to tell designed objects from non-designed objects."
Wrong I have done this many times now, both here and in other threads. It uses a simple process to observe, test, measure evaluate and study detailed organisms both great and small.
So then you will have no problem at all linking us to a few of those messages where you "have done this many times now".
I'll use this Message 131 as an example. Do you see that six-digit number in parentheses next to the "Message 131 of 143" at top of the message? That's the message ID. To create a link to that message you use this syntax: [mid=], eg [mid=592343] .
Unless, of course, you're just bullshitting us yet again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 11:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 5:02 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 175 of 325 (592607)
11-20-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 5:02 PM


Re: Question everything
OK, fine. I get it. I've gotten it all along.
You're just bullshitting us. You've got nothing, so you're using the only thing left to you, bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 5:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 176 of 325 (592609)
11-20-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 1:45 AM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
dwise1 writes:
Please take the opportunity to express, in a logical manner, the inexorible chain of logic that leads to your conclusion.
This {ABE: requirement} is nothing new. It has existed from the very beginning. All you ever had to do was to exhibit it.
Well you did everything in your brutal, idiotic post but answer my question.
What question? Do you mean this, that I had quoted in my Message 66 to which you replied from your Message 62 to which I was replying:
Please demonstrate HOW if I employ all the basics that that is supernatural, religious or different from your method
That is not a question. And as I pointed out, it is not even a sentence. And it does not even make sense, because you never completed your subordinate clause. You are requesting: "Please demonstrate HOW ... ". "How what"? The rest of what you had written is an interjected conditional phrase, not the completion of your aborted attempt at a sentence.
Dawn, two things that are important in the military are training and communication. Non-comm/petty officer training emphasize our roles in training and communicating; I know that commissioned officers also have management courses and schools and I'm certain that they also instructed in communication. You might have heard rumors about those two subjects when you were in. In communication, you have a message that you, the sender, are to send intact to a receiver, eg, to us. Your responsibility as the sender is to ensure that the message gets across to the receivers. This includes receiving feedback from the receivers as to whether they received the message intact and using that feedback to modify your transmission so as to better ensure that your message gets across. The importance of successful communication in training should be obvious, which is why the instructor repeatedly quizzes the trainees, both formally and informally.
Dawn, didn't you ever learn anything at all in your NCO/PO training? Your 2259+ messages here have amply and consistently demonstrated your inability to communicate. We repeatedly give you feedback that your writing is incomprehensible and you do nothing at all to try to make it more comprehensible. Instead, you resort to insults. I'm not the only one who has noticed this: Percy as administrator has repeatedly addressed this problem of yours with you, but you keep ignoring him. And now you have also lost the privilege to start new topics. What more needs to happen before you begin to realize that maybe you're doing something the wrong way?
Or if your purpose here is not to communicate with us nor to train us in your ideas about ID, then what is it? Because your actions and attitude so far strongly indicates that you are indeed not at all interested in communicating or teaching.
quote:
Tom Lehrer from That Was The Year That Was:
Now, there are people who cannot communicate. Well if they cannot communicate, then the least that they could do would be to just shut up!
So, assuming that this is a restatement of your "question":
If we both use the same methods as I have already descirbed several times now, why are they not science and what is there that you employ that we do not.
Do they indeed use the same methods? You have not demonstrated that, not even attempted to -- nearly 200 messages into the topic and you have not yet tried to support the OP? And just where have you "already descirbed {them} several times now"? You have offered a short list of some basic ideas, but you have most certainly not yet offered any kind description of either method. We keep asking you to and you keep dodging -- probably one big reason for your no longer being able to start new topics. For that matter, you have demonstrated your not even knowing the scientific method, in that you have no idea what a theory is; from your Message 38 (my emphasis added):
There are really only three classifications. The methods you use to form your hypothesis, how things work presently and hypothesis about what might have have happened, as you call them theories
If you don't even know what the scientific method is, then how can you say it's identical to the ID method, which you continue to refuse to present?
To repeat (from my Message 1:
Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen?
Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design?
Please note, as you had ignored before, that you had the option to address the far-too-often-made request for a methodology for detecting and determining design, with no requirement that it be supernatural. There should be no reason for you to refuse to present that methodology, unless you already know that it does not exist.
Here's a model for what should be an acceptable level of detail, from the OP of my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY):
Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations. Those hypotheses which prove correct are kept and subjected to further testing, while those that don't pan out are either examined for what's wrong with them and they either get discarded or a correction is attempted which is then subjected to further testing. Out of this process we develop a bundle of hypotheses which are used to develop a theory, a conceptual model of the natural phenomena in question and which describes our understanding of what that phenomena are and how they operate. That theory is used to make predictions and it is tested by how good those predictions are; thus the theory undergoes further testing and refinement and correcting. And that testing is not performed solely by the developers of the theory, but also by other members in the scientific community who have a vested interest in finding problems in that theory because they may be basing their own research on that theory -- if that theory turns out to be wrong, then they want to know that before they start their own research based on it.
Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.
Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.
OK, Dawn, so just what is your ID methology? And just how does it work? In detail!
While you're at it, could you also please present in detail how you think that the scientific method works.
Edited by dwise1, : Correction to the remembered Tom Lehrer quote from decades ago -- it's on vinyl and she got the turntable

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 1:45 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2010 3:39 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 184 of 325 (592628)
11-20-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by alschwin
11-20-2010 8:13 PM


Re: You seem to have been so far carried away on your own torrent of lies, rhetoric, whin
Uh, guy, this forum is moderated, as has already been pointed out twice (once directly and again indirectly). Cosmology is not the subject of this topic, so you will need to pursue this in other topic where it is the subject. Or else start your own.
Sorry, but that's just life in the EVC Forum. I'm just a member, so this is peer-counselling. Better to hear it from me than from an Admin, right?
Edited by dwise1, : 'splaining

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 8:13 PM alschwin has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 190 of 325 (592642)
11-20-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 4:56 PM


Re: Still just empty assertions and claims.
Jar are the methods I have initially set out in the form of Observation, evaluation, experimentation, and predictions scientifically based?
{trying very hard not to channel Bill Murray as one of the Not Quite Ready For Prime Time Players (those who know the recurrent skit with Jane Curtin should know to what I refer)}
Dawn, {biting my tongue here}, what you list are not methods. Rather, they are bases (please note that the pronounciation is for the plural of "basis", not the plural of "base"). We are not asking for bases, but rather for methodologies. A likely candidate for an actual description of a methodology might be what I reproduced for you at the end of my Message 176.
PS
C'mon. What are the details of that methodology? Because we really do need to know those details. And the effects they will have on the ability of science to continue to function. For review, do reference the OP of my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY).
While you're at it, please also consider the questions of forum members who have asked what difference it would make whether a supernatural creator exists in most scientific investigations. Somewhat akin to whether the scientist doing the research was wearing matching socks.
And if you wish to protest that your claims are completely different from those of the leading IDists, then it is incumbent on you to present sufficient information to demonstrate that your approach to ID is significantly different from those of the leadingf IDists and ID organizations. That will require a complete description of your own ideas about ID.
Your move.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 4:56 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 201 of 325 (592666)
11-20-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 11:12 PM


Re: Question everything
If thats you in the picture, sorry doll face, yes we are talking about order and harmony
Dawn, you stupid bitch. No, that's not Ringo. That is Sharon Stone in an Old West movie about an epic race (which also featured Gene Hackman) in whch one member rode with a whisky-soaked bullet bitten by himself -- sorry, but I never have watched that movie, except for a singular scene where one Mexican contestant in that race soaked that bullet in whisky before returning it between his teeth. Unless I'm mistaking it for yet another Western I had not seen in which Sharon Stone was a contestant in a series of noon-day showdowns. I will leave it up to Ringo to resolve that.
You have proposed something that is substantially different from what science would have produced. The onus is on you to produce evidence of that.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 11:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2010 2:20 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 305 of 325 (593149)
11-24-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Taq
11-24-2010 1:09 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
For ID, the null hypothesis is the production of order by non-intelligent mechanisms. Therefore, any experiment that tests ID must be designed so that order produced by non-intelligent mechanisms would be detectable in the experiment. This is assuming that the IDM and the SM are one in the same.
If I may point out, this is precisely the reason why we must know just exactly how to detect and determine design, a request we have made repeatedly of IDists both in this thread and elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 11-24-2010 1:09 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Taq, posted 11-24-2010 4:05 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 310 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-24-2010 9:13 PM dwise1 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