Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 10:29 PM
25 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,867 Year: 14,903/19,786 Month: 1,626/3,058 Week: 404/868 Day: 43/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge
Son
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


(2)
Message 109 of 285 (683874)
12-14-2012 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by tesla
12-13-2012 10:16 PM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
Could you imagine if Einstein had said something like:"My theory is right, you just need to put money in space program to prove it" (in case you don't know, he actually made predictions about what we would see if his theory was right instead) or any other scientists said something to this effect? Did you notice that everytime you hear about a researcher, you can actually describe his work? That's the difference between scientific research and ID, scientists actually do the work whereas you expect others to spoonfeed you the work you should be doing. That's why ID isn't respected by the scientific community, you spend all your time and money and propagande instead of actual research.

Here's an example of what we would expect if ID was serious research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
Did you notice that the whole page isn't filled with:"put money here and that's it"?

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by tesla, posted 12-13-2012 10:16 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by tesla, posted 12-14-2012 8:16 PM Son has responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


(1)
Message 119 of 285 (684030)
12-15-2012 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by tesla
12-14-2012 8:16 PM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
But they did know what kind of experiments they would run when they built it. The difference is that you don't even have the beginning of an experiment that would test ID, if we gave ID billions to test their idea, what kind of experiments would we expect? You seem to have spent lots of time avoiding to answer that when a single response would suffice to get the discussion started. You don't need to be a specialist to describe the experiment, you just have to look for those so called ID scientists the same way I can point out tests for relativity despite not having a great understanding of it.

Does your answer mean that your "theory" has no testable hypothesis meaning that it is in no way a science?Because the way you've described ID research so far make it seem as valid as fairy science or dragon science....

Btw, you actually need to describe how your experiment would relate to ID, otherwise, I could just say something like :
"If we find life on other planets, it proves dragon science so dragon science is a valid science".

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by tesla, posted 12-14-2012 8:16 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by tesla, posted 12-15-2012 10:44 AM Son has responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 124 of 285 (684074)
12-15-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by tesla
12-15-2012 10:44 AM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
You may have had the impression you showed something, but there's nothing in what you wrote that shows ID as a valid science. "Dig deeper" could be said about any theory, that's why it's not proof that you have a scientific theory.

For example :
"Dragon is, or Dragon is not? Was humanity a result of a fart by a constipated dragon? Was the universe and all we know of it a result of a diarrhea? Maybe one day we will know. But with current technological limitations, it remains a potential. "

See, I just changed some words and with your "tests", it seems an hypothesis as valid as yours.

If that's all you have to say, I guess we can conclude that ID is not science since you refuse to provide any experiment that would verify an ID hypothesis (and no, throwing random experiments without explaining why they relate to ID is not valid).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by tesla, posted 12-15-2012 10:44 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by tesla, posted 12-23-2012 12:11 AM Son has responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


(1)
Message 133 of 285 (685467)
12-23-2012 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by tesla
12-23-2012 12:11 AM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
Saying it is related to ID science oesnt make it so. For example, X-ray diffraction is what allowed people to deduce the structure of the DNA but even you should be able to see that nowhere is diffraction considered a part of evolutionnary science. Another example, letting 2 balls of the same form but of different weight allow us to deduce some properties of gravity, surely even you would agree that knowing how to make balls isn't part of the science behind the theory of gravity.

So even if space travel was related to ID, your experiment would still be irrevelant. Moreover, you still haven't shown how space travel would be related to ID as opposed to the dragon fart theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by tesla, posted 12-23-2012 12:11 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by tesla, posted 12-24-2012 10:38 PM Son has responded

    
Son
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 138 of 285 (685682)
12-25-2012 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by tesla
12-24-2012 10:38 PM


Re: spend it on space exploration/ Brain research.
All what you said still doesn't show how you would go about researching ID, try to read a bit about how hypothesis are checked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

This:

quote:
Special relativity also predicts that two light rays traveling in opposite directions around a loop or closed path require different flight times to come back to the moving emitter/receiver (this is a consequence of the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source, see above). This effect was actually observed and is called the Sagnac effect. Currently, the consideration of this effect is necessary for many experimental setups and for the correct functioning of GPS.

is of particuliar interest since the test has direct real world application in our day to day lives.

Just hand-waving around is not science, you need to show how you would actually work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by tesla, posted 12-24-2012 10:38 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019