Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
74 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,038 Year: 5,150/6,534 Month: 570/794 Week: 61/135 Day: 1/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 419 of 638 (736821)
09-13-2014 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by taiji2
09-13-2014 2:58 PM


Re: the eyes have it
taiji2 writes:

nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory.

Of course there is reality that cannot be studied in the laboratory. Many scientific fields study reality outside the laboratory. Geology and cosmology are examples.

Wouldn't it be impossible to verify the contention that there are parts of reality that are undetectable?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 2:58 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 4:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 426 of 638 (736833)
09-13-2014 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by taiji2
09-13-2014 4:28 PM


Re: the eyes have it
taiji2 writes:

If my statement causes confusion, please give me the constraints that science uses beyond which it presumes anything is not real. I will use those constraints with the same questions. Thanks

Your statement didn't cause confusion. I was simply pointing out that science doesn't restrict itself to the laboratory. The scientific method of studying our world and universe can be applied anywhere. The laboratory has the advantage of a controlled environment, but not all phenomena can be studied in the laboratory.

Science can't answer questions about whether undetectable phenomena are real. If you claim there is more to reality than what we can detect, science can't verify that claim.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 4:28 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 6:45 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 434 of 638 (736850)
09-13-2014 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by taiji2
09-13-2014 6:45 PM


Re: the eyes have it
taiji2 writes:

I am not trying to be arbitrary, but could you point me to where I suggested answering questions on undetectable phenomena?

Sure. In Message 416 you said, "Nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory."

I responded by pointing out that science isn't restricted to the laboratory, and from your earlier discussion with your concentric circles of reality it was clear that what you mean by "cannot be measured, tested and replicated" is that which is undetectable. You had an outer circle that was everything real, and within that another circle of everything that "man CAN observe, measure, test and validate."

That you're objecting to my interpretation of what you said tells me that you think there are things we can detect but can't study scientifically. I don't think anything like that exists. If we can detect it, if is apparent to our senses in one way or another, then we can study it scientifically.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 6:45 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 11:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 436 of 638 (736862)
09-14-2014 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by taiji2
09-13-2014 11:05 PM


Re: the eyes have it
taiji2 writes:

I have looked back over my posts with you. I do not see the word undetectable except in your mentioning it and in reference to you mentioning it.

As I just said, it was your description of the concentric circles that led me to believe you were talking about undetectable phenomena. You have an outer circle that is all of reality, and then you have a circle inside that that is only what "man CAN observe, measure, test and validate." I interpreted you to mean that the outer portion of the outer circle was undetectable phenomena.

I simply want to know if there is anything which science agrees is real but that it also agrees cannot be studied using the scientific method.

Since we can only establish that something is real by observing it, I don't think any such thing exists.

Black holes were hypothesized to exist long before there was any possibility of observational evidence, but that was a technological limitation. Naturally, in the absence of evidence there was no agreement within science that they were real. But once the technological limitations were overcome observational evidence accumulated within just a few decades sufficient to form a consensus that they're real.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 11:05 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by taiji2, posted 09-14-2014 2:34 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 446 of 638 (736895)
09-14-2014 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by taiji2
09-14-2014 2:34 PM


Re: the eyes have it
But you said that outer portion of your outer circle represents reality that can't be observed. If you can't observe it in some way, then by what means are you detecting it?

Is your statement "Since we can only establish that something is real by observing it" an a priori assumption that anything that cannot be observed is not real?

No. For example, observing a black swan is evidence that black swans are real. But never observing a black swan is not evidence that they're not real. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This reference to the black holes existence hypothesis seems (to me) to answer my above question to the negative, but I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

Establishing that black holes exist is an example of how science really works. I thought you might find a real world example of science in action helpful.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by taiji2, posted 09-14-2014 2:34 PM taiji2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 498 of 638 (737037)
09-16-2014 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by taiji2
09-16-2014 4:15 AM


Re: The Tao
Taiji2 writes:

Where is the science that proves all ideas come from brains.

Cat Sci writes:

Ever single idea we have ever been aware of has come from a brain.

That is a strong statement. Has science been done to support it?

Cat Sci writes:

From this we can scientifically induce, tentatively, that all ideas come from brains.

Based on the unsupported ipso facto statement you just made.

Cat Sci writes:

If you don't think so, then point to one idea that did not come from a brain.

Sure....... something on the order of let there be Tai Chi.

Ideas that aren't a product of brains thinking. Interesting. Are the ideas of prickly or disputatious also independent of brains?

Concerning the topic, if you have a legitimate argument for design I haven't heard it yet.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 4:15 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 6:04 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 501 of 638 (737041)
09-16-2014 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by taiji2
09-16-2014 6:04 AM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Not to be prickly, but I doubt you ever will say you do. After all, you are free to define legitimate argument as you wish. In the end we will all come down to opinions, but the journey is interesting!

A "legitimate argument for design" is setting the bar pretty low. It doesn't mean a convincing argument for design, just a rational one, one that is a comprehensible and based on evidence, one that if someone asked me where's the science in your argument I could explain it to them. A lot of what you're saying so far seems mystical, not scientific.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 6:04 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 2:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 510 of 638 (737070)
09-16-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by taiji2
09-16-2014 2:15 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

You have helped me achieve clarity.

Lord help you achieve clarity out of this jumbled muddle.

If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do. Again, I suggest that perhaps the name of the thread could have been made a bit more clear.

Click on this link: Science Forums at Evc. This particular forum, Intelligent Design, is on the list. It's one of the science forums at EvC. The natural assumption is that people will join threads in these forums to discuss science.

If you're arguing that intelligent design has no scientific support then I couldn't agree more.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 2:15 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 5:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 520 of 638 (737084)
09-16-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by taiji2
09-16-2014 5:19 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

You can get me off this thread forever with a yes or no answer.

You are a very touchy guy. No one's trying to get you "off this thread." What I wrote was a response to your statement that the thread's title isn't sufficiently clear if there's supposed to be an emphasis on science. So I pointed at that the thread is in one of the science forums.

But I don't think anyone here has any problem with you arguing here that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. It seems an eminently sensible position.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 5:19 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 10:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 525 of 638 (737098)
09-17-2014 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by taiji2
09-16-2014 10:09 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Well no actually. At least not in this case. I have recognized that you are the forum moderator. As such, I pay particular attention to what you tell me regarding where I am and what I am doing on the forum. I recognize your authority. So when you remind me I am on a science forum and say there is an assumption people join threads in these (science) forums to discuss science ........ well I just assumed there was a message there. My interpretation of that message was you were telling me the forums on the website are divided between science forums and forums that are not science. My interpretation was that you were suggesting I was in the wrong place on the website. If my interpretation was right, I was indicating my willingness to move my presence to where it was appropriate. If my interpretation was wrong, I simply needed an answer that my interpretation was wrong.

You're torturing yourself with over analysis in this thread. I said I was only responding to what you said about the thread's title not being clear, and that's all that I meant. I'm only a participant in this thread. Moderators are not normally permitted to moderate threads where they're participating.

Percy writes:

But I don't think anyone here has any problem with you arguing here that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. It seems an eminently sensible position.

There you go again saying I said what I didn't say.

There were no quotation marks around what I said you said. I wasn't quoting you verbatim. I don't have to use the identical words you used to say the same thing you said, and in Message 506 you said, "If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do."

This statement would be inexplicable if you had a legitimate scientific argument for intelligent design, but if you do actually have one then it's well past time to start presenting it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 10:09 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 9:41 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 542 of 638 (737123)
09-17-2014 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by taiji2
09-17-2014 1:19 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

ringo writes:

Nobody does. Science, by its very nature is "adjustable". Everybody who accepts science expects the theory of evolution to be modified on an ongoing basis.


Ok, I will take your word. I am pretty sure I have seen statements here that violate that, but I will accept what you say is true and that others might have misspoke.

Ringo is saying the same thing others have already said, that science is tentative. Our understanding of the natural world can change in light of new information or improved insight.

ringo writes:

However, we expect the modifications to be relatively small.


Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded ...be considered relatively small?

No. That would be big.

Would the discovery that...92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small?

No, because it wouldn't represent a change in our understanding. That unused DNA, also called junk DNA, can become coding DNA has long been an accepted view within science. Also, we're now coming to understand that a great deal of what was formerly thought to be unused DNA actually has a purpose, that it can perform regulatory functions. Given that evolution employs a "whatever works" approach we should expect the future to bring more unexpected surprises about how DNA works.

Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design?

Because when you weigh the evidence for design against the evidence for "woo-woo" things like ghosts and sasquatch, they come out equal.

ringp writes:

Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.


I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned. Where should I look.

I think you should look within yourself and give a serious response next time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 1:19 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 5:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 559 of 638 (737158)
09-18-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by taiji2
09-17-2014 5:12 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Percy writes:

Ringo is saying the same thing others have already said, that science is tentative. Our understanding of the natural world can change in light of new information or improved insight.

I have no problem with what ringo said. I did observe other comments on the thread that were not what ringo said.

No. In their own words everyone has said the same thing about scientific tentativity.

Thank you. I was not aware of this accepted view. I just learned and you taught me. Do you have a revision to the old 92% junk number that floats around for us common folk? I have many questions, but presume you don't want to teach on this forum. If you have any references to reading though, I do have a keen interest.

Wherever you obtained the 92% figure, you can be sure it has changed and will continue to change. Wikipedia has an article on Noncoding DNA.

I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions.

And Ringo looked up "fanciful" for you in Merriam-Webster and found that it *did* reference "evidence" in his Message 541:

quote:
1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience link

Every time someone uses different terminology you seem to get lost.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 5:12 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 4:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 570 of 638 (737181)
09-18-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by taiji2
09-18-2014 4:46 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Perhaps you can highlight or color code the word for me. I still do not find the word evidence in what ringo provided.
...
In my opinion, diferent terminology is not allowed when someone claims anything "by definition". In my opinion, the definition should include what is claimed. In this case it does not. You can argue inference, but inference is not definition.

Instead of making up lots of silly rules and arguing silly points, why don't you try discussing the topic?

Your claim is that there are things we can know that science can't study, i.e., things which have no evidence. That makes no sense to us, and so we ask you questions like, "How is your idea about something that has no evidence any less fanciful than unicorns?"

This is what you have yet to explain, so why not get on with it?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 4:46 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2014 8:39 PM Percy has seen this message
 Message 572 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 8:42 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 574 of 638 (737185)
09-18-2014 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by taiji2
09-18-2014 8:42 PM


Re: The Tao
Hi Taiji2,

In the proclamation in your signature about what a debate is and is not you could add an item about a debate having a topic for discussion to center on.

You might want to reexamine the way you approach discussion, which seems designed to irritate everyone, even those who might agree with you. Visit some other discussion boards - if you act the same way you did here you'll encounter the same difficulties. It's a pretty safe bet that when you think everyone's against you, it's not them, it's you.

You began by arguing that an idea could be shown true without supporting evidence, so when you think the time is right why don't you come back and resume discussion. If you keep your focus on defending that idea instead of on keeping everyone on your idea of the straight and narrow you'll have a lot more success, and a lot more fun, too.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 8:42 PM taiji2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 584 of 638 (737215)
09-19-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by taiji2
09-19-2014 3:16 PM


Re: Current Summary
taiji2 writes:

When the firing stopped, not a single ARVN soldier was in sight.

When the firing stopped, the only one not in sight was you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by taiji2, posted 09-19-2014 3:16 PM taiji2 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022