Wow you make the point of the link I provided in the opening of this thread. Have you even read it?
Yes I did. He makes wishy washy arguments without substance.
It was not a scientific text, just his opinion of how things should be.
edit : ok, we are talking baout different links here.
Quote:
The author clearly uses logic as you say above to demonstrate that indeed Science will allow concepts to be enough for theory.
But we have more than concepts. We have evidence that gravity exists.
It is strongly believed that gravity, like the other forces, should be quantised.
If it cannot, then something new will be proposed.
Quarks cannot be observed, but their actions certainly can.
Both of these ideas are constrained to be within the models which describe them.
They weren't just made up on a cold rainy day because the graduate students were bored.
Quote:
I for one have no issue at all with this. The question then becomes if "Science" is welcome to such conceptual (without concrete proof or evidence) ideas to be part of a theory why then is the concept of ID not allowed this luxury?
Fellowship
Because a "religious belief" isn't enough.
The idea that we evolved is part of the "theory of evolution". No one is going to go back 3 billion years to gather the evidence for this. However, as long as the evidence continues to support the model which predicts this, then it is a perfectly valid proposal. You can also do experiments on very fast breeding creatures - I believe fruit flys are the creature of choice.
As was mentioned above, by your definition "Thor produces thunder" is a valid scientific theory.
A 'flat earth' is a valid scientific theory.
'The moon is made of green cheese' is a valid scientific theory.
As soon as you start modeling based on observation, you see that they are not.
Mathematical physics comes up with scientific theories that are way out there, for example, tachyons. The mathematics is there. The predictions are there. But as far as I know, there is no evidence. It is a scientific theory because it has made predictions that can be tested. Just because tachyons haven't been observed doesn't make the theory any less scientific. It just happens to be stuck half way through the loop. It may not be on the same scientific level as general relativity, say, but it is still science.
ID doesn't even do that. ID can be a scientific theory. It just needs a model and testable predictions. It also needs to be able to survive the peer review process, as has been previously pointed out.
You cannot arbitrarily change the playing field to suit yourself. If you cannot supply a theory that is subject to the same testing as other theories, then you don't have a scientific theory.
Until that happens, evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is not.
edit: being able to falsify a theory is just one facet of the "scientific method". The circular argument fails because "the moon is made out of green cheese" is falsifiable. But it was never a scientific theory.
We leave things to themselves, and they fall apart.
Always.
Every time.
It's always the same.
There is no roadmap from rocks to humans.
It is a theory.
Untestable.
Incomplete by definition.
Unusable.
I understand you define yourself in how much you participate in ultimate being, but your belief in the Miracle of Evolution is a theological leap of Faith that has literally nothing to do with science.
This is the second time that you've mentioned rocks becoming humans. Just to clarify, do you think evolution claims that rocks became humans?
Regards,
Sean
It's more than that, but what I mean is rain falling on the rocks, washing the ingredients off creating a primordial soup followed by a a smorgasbord of serendipity and favorable random chance processes creating ordered systems---some of them with sencience.
Evolution is an old theory that has had its chance to prove itself---it just never did; it's time to give another theory a try. The problem is that "scientists" have made theological assumptions that they aren't willing to part with, namely the insistence in full participation with all being.
It's more than that, but what I mean is rain falling on the rocks, washing the ingredients off creating a primordial soup followed by a a smorgasbord of serendipity and favorable random chance processes creating ordered systems---some of them with sencience.
Evolution is an old theory that has had its chance to prove itself---it just never did; it's time to give another theory a try. The problem is that "scientists" have made theological assumptions that they aren't willing to part with, namely the insistence in full participation with all being.
So wait, if there was any theory that hasn't had any evidence to support it over a long period it would creationism. Scientist generally dont ditch a theory that explains more than any other competing theory out there. For instance the Raleigh-Jeans theory (which was later modified by Plank etc) predicted much of the observed radiation of a black body but over predicted the amount of low wavelength light that one would expect to be emmitted. It explained more than any other theory and was accepted for that, it wasnt tossed out of the window because it didnt fit all of the observed properties. It was modified. Tossing it out would deny the legitimacy of the actual science that has supported the theory. Better explainations may replace the current theory of evolution, but they need to explain as well or better than evolution things that evolution explains well.
Like most americans I dont think ena understands statistics. If an event has a 1/10^9 chance of occuring, that doesnt mean it doesnt occur ever, it just means it has a small chance of occuring at any point. Things dont need a favorable chance to actually occur.
Like most americans I dont think ena understands statistics.
Please bobsky not today---I was just answering a question. And I have a headache. And I actually have to get something done. And there's all this birch pollen, my eyes look like pomegranates.
For the 3 jizzillionth time, we see certain people confuse "evolution" with "genesis", as they attempt to argue the relevance of evolution as a scientific theory.
Please bobsky not today---I was just answering a question. And I have a headache. And I actually have to get something done. And there's all this birch pollen, my eyes look like pomegranates.
Is it possible that there is an 'intelligent design' to the universe? Absolutely. Is it possible that there is a 'naturalistic design' to the universe? Absolutely. The main difference between these two is that although we can observe both (because the observation is the same), we can only predict the latter, which is where the problem is.
For intelligent designers, if the result can always be predicted, then there is a naturalist theory behind the behavior. If the result cannot be predicted, then more evidence goes to support their theory.
For naturalists, if the result is not predicted, then the theory must be revised. If the result is as predicted, then more evidence goes to support their theory.
As long as there are results that cannot be predicted, there is room for intelligent design. Mankind must know the answer to every question to disprove intelligent design. Since I don't see that ever happening, intelligent designers have a leg to stand on.
It all falls down on the shoulders of mathematics. The Principia Mathematica was written to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 and from that the basis of mathematics is formed. There is no such text for any other science (that I am aware of), but all other sciences rely on it. If we can boil evolution, creation of life, even the big bang down to mathematics, then and only then will intelligent designers have no leg to stand on.
"Yet as is now well known, positivism soon self-destructed. Philosophers came to realize that positivism's verificationist criterion of meaning did not achieve its own standard. That is, the assumptions of positivism turn out to be neither empirically verifiable nor logically undeniable. Furthermore, positivism's verificationist ideal misrepresented much actual scientific practice. Many scientific theories refer to unverifiable and unobservable entities such as forces, fields, molecules, quarks and universal laws. "
Does this make sense to anybody?
Philosophers hey? Gotta love 'em.
The effects of forces, fields, molecules, quarks can be observed.
If I develop a model of forces and predict that X happens as a result of these forces, then I hope to see X happen. If Y happens, it's back to the drawing board.
"With the death of positivism in the 1950s, demarcationists took a different tack. Other semantic criteria emerged, such as Sir Karl Popper's falsifiability. According to Popper, scientific theories were more meaningful than nonscientific ideas because they referred only to empirically falsifiable entities. Yet this, too, proved to be a problematic criterion. First, falsification turns out to be difficult to achieve. Rarely are the core commitments of theories directly tested via prediction. Instead, predictions occur when core theoretical commitments are conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses, thus always leaving open the possibility that auxiliary hypotheses, not core commitments, are responsible for failed predictions."
Hence you go back and modify the theory. Like Newton did.
"Newtonian mechanics, for example, assumed as its core three laws of motion and the theory of universal gravitation. On the basis of these, Newton made a number of predictions about the positions of planets in the solar system. When observations failed to corroborate some of his predictions, he did not reject his core assumptions. Instead, he scrutinized some of his auxiliary hypotheses to explain the discrepancies between theory and observation. For example, he examined his working assumption that planets were perfectly spherical and influenced only by gravitational force. As Imre Lakatos has shown, Newton's refusal to repudiate his core in the face of anomalies enabled him to refine his theory and eventually led to its tremendous success. Newton's refusal to accept putatively falsifying results certainly did not call into question the scientific status of his gravitational theory or his three laws."
Nope, because he had a model within which to make predictions.
The model turned out to be pretty good. Some assumptions weren't.
Note : He had a model. He made assumptions. He made predictions. He tested his model against observational data. He modified his assumptions, while remaining consistent within his model.
Good science.
"The function of auxiliary hypotheses in scientific testing suggests that many scientific theories, including those in so-called hard sciences, may be very difficult, if not impossible, to falsify conclusively. Yet many theories that have been falsified in practice via the consensus judgment of the scientific community must qualify as scientific according to the falsifiability criterion. Since they have been falsified, they are obviously falsifiable, and since they are falsifiable, they would seem to be scientific."
Wrong. The model can be falsified. It it had been predicted that the earth should be in a highly elliptical orbit, and no amount of tweaking could change that, then the model is wrong.
We don't believe the earth is at the center of the solar system any more, do we?
The theory of tacyons may be hard to verify, or falsify. But mathematical physics has the tendency to blur the line between the physical sciences and pure mathematics.
So long as the theory remains mathematically consistent within the model, there are no problems. The predictions are now theorems, with rigorous mathematical proofs.
"And so it has gone generally with demarcation criteria. Many theories that have been repudiated on evidential grounds express the very epistemic and methodological virtues (testability, falsifiability, observability, etc.) that have been alleged to characterize true science. Many theories that are held in high esteem lack some of the allegedly necessary and sufficient features of proper science. As a result, with few exceptions most contemporary philosophers of science regard the question "What methods distinguish science from nonscience?" as both intractable and uninteresting. What, after all, is in a name? Certainly not automatic epistemic warrant or authority. Thus philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific but whether it is true or warranted by the evidence. Thus, as Martin Eger has summarized, "demarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world.""
So is the world of the philosopher. I had a professor who laughed all the way through a philosophers talk on the nature of black holes. Why? Because my professor was an "expert" on black holes, and he realised that the philosopher had no idea. He was unable to grasp concepts that were easily explained using some reasonably advanced tensor algebra.
It simply looks like philosophers need to understand the difference between current valid theories, and past invalidated theories.
The steady state theory was a scientific theory. Just because we now have the big bang doesn't mean the steady state theory is no longer a scientific theory.
Pre-DNA theories (that pass the tests of what it is to be a scientific theory) are still scientific theories.
Pre-quark theories (that pass the tests of what it is to be a scientific theory) are still scientific theories.
They have just all been superseded.
To suggest that "Many theories that have been repudiated on evidential grounds express the very epistemic and methodological virtues (testability, falsifiability, observability, etc.) that have been alleged to characterize true science" somehow invalidates what it means to be a scientific theory is either ignorance or dishonesty.
They are still scientific theories if they pass the tests on what a scientific theory is. Since the quote claims they did indeed pass the test, then they were, and still are scientific theories. They are just no longer valid.
"Many theories that are held in high esteem lack some of the allegedly necessary and sufficient features of proper science."
Such as?
QCD requires quarks. No quarks are observed. Their actions are, and predictions can be made, which have been confirmed.
QCD is a scientific theory. Would one of these philosophers say otherwise?
No one has seen a black hole. The models exist. Predictions are made. Evidence exists that such things may well exist. Would one of these philosophers say this isn't a scientific theory?
Ever seen the weak or strong force? Are the theories describing these forces scientific theories? Of course they are.
Any philosopher that claims a scientific theory isn't one simply because one or more assumptions or predictions have not, or can not be directly verified, is simply playing semantic games. While the model continues to be consistent with the observations, the predictions and assumptions are valid. It is no less a scientific theory because of it.
If evidence shows that one or more predictions or assumptions are wrong, then the model is modified, or scrapped if there is no way out.
As an example, Evolution with its model, predictions and assumptions is a scientific theory.
Creationism has no model, it makes no predictions and it's one assumption - that god exists - can never be proven. It is not a scientific theory.
"Yet as is now well known, positivism soon self-destructed. Philosophers came to realize that positivism's verificationist criterion of meaning did not achieve its own standard. That is, the assumptions of positivism turn out to be neither empirically verifiable nor logically undeniable. Furthermore, positivism's verificationist ideal misrepresented much actual scientific practice. Many scientific theories refer to unverifiable and unobservable entities such as forces, fields, molecules, quarks and universal laws. "
Quote from linked doc. (above)
Quote:
Does this make sense to anybody?
Philosophers hey? Gotta love 'em.
remark by xenu in reply to quote from linked doc. (above)
I think what the Dr. said made complete sense. Not exactly hard to follow. He is simply saying science can not rely solely on [positive observable data] to suffice for a proposed scientific theory. One could say ID fits the following "the assumptions are neither empirically varifiable nor logically undeniable"
Quote:
Ever seen the weak or strong force? Are the theories describing these forces scientific theories? Of course they are.
quote from xenu in the last reply. (above)
I agree with you with this xenu I have never seen the weak or strong force.
As well I have not seen the "Designer" in the model for ID.
The question is why the discrimination against this "designer" by some in science?
Is it too metaphysical?
metaphysical defined: 1 Of or relating to metaphysics.
2 Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
Science affords other "scientific theories" to be based in part on [non-positive observable data] "metaphysical" you could say, so why the hostility against another theory for origins of life on planet Earth?
There are so many theories such as string theory and others that are based on [non-positive observable data] "metaphysics" yet they are "ok" in a scientific context. Many theories have a level of a leap of faith with them yet they are scientific???? What gives?
If science allows other "scientific theories" to incorporate metaphysical aspects to the model why the fuss over ID?
You say xenu that ID has no model....
ID does have a general model as does evolution.
ID takes the stance that there indeed is a designer that with intelligence designed life as compared to just chance and mutation being responsible for highly advanced life forms.
Many ID websites have diagrams that point to the differences between the model of ID and that of Evolution.
The question is what story does one buy. I see no reason as I pointed out above as to why evolution should have a locked monopoly on the theory of the origins of life. I think science can host under the scientific umbrella more than one theory of origins.
I believe firmly in the next 20 years we will see some changes in this area.
[/b] remark by xenu in reply to quote from linked doc. (above)
I think what the Dr. said made complete sense. Not exactly hard to follow. He is simply saying science can not rely solely on [positive observable data] to suffice for a proposed scientific theory. One could say ID fits the following "the assumptions are neither empirically varifiable nor logically undeniable"
[/b] quote from xenu in the last reply. (above)
[/B]
Lucky science doesn't then. Plain English would have sufficed.
A scientific theory requires models as well. As well as predictions and assumptions, all of which are consistent within the model.
A hugh bonus is the ability to compare with observation. Wouldn't be much of a physical theory if there are no physical observations.
Quote:
I agree with you with this xenu I have never seen the weak or strong force.
As well I have not seen the "Designer" in the model for ID.
Because there is no model for ID.
Quote:
The question is why the discrimination against this "designer" by some in science?
Is it too metaphysical?
metaphysical defined: 1 Of or relating to metaphysics.
2 Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
There is no model for ID.
Religious belief is not a model.
Quote:
Science affords other "scientific theories" to be based in part on [non-positive observable data] "metaphysical" you could say, so why the hostility against another theory for origins of life on planet Earth?
No science doesn't.
The current theory describing the stong force make predictions concerning the way the force acts on other objects. These predictions are made within a model, and must be consistent within the model. We don't have to observe the strong force, because it's actions can be observed. The theory says, if the strong force exists, we expect "this" to happen. Guess what? We see "this" happening. Therefore we are happy with the model and assumptions.
Nothing metaphysical about it.
Quote:
There are so many theories such as string theory and others that are based on [non-positive observable data] "metaphysics" yet they are "ok" in a scientific context. Many theories have a level of a leap of faith with them yet they are scientific???? What gives?
No they are not based on metaphysics.
String theory is developed within a model and is mathematically consistent within that model. It makes predictions. We don't have to observe the "strings". We just need to ensure the predictions are observable, and agree with observation.
Nothing metaphysical about it.
Is general relativity metaphysical?
By your definition it is.
Quote:
If science allows other "scientific theories" to incorporate metaphysical aspects to the model why the fuss over ID?
Because science doesn't.
Once again, you don't need to physically observe a phenomena to verify it within a model - its effects on other objects, as predicted within the model, is enough.
Nothing metaphysical about it.
Quote:
You say xenu that ID has no model....
ID does have a general model as does evolution.
ID takes the stance that there indeed is a designer that with intelligence designed life as compared to just chance and mutation being responsible for highly advanced life forms.
A religious belief does not make a model.
Neither does it make a scientific theory.
What are the constraints of ID?
Is it confined by the speed of light? By the age of the earth?
Oh, that's right, the designer can do anything.
Absolutely worthless as a theory. It explains nothing.
What are the predictions? Oh that's right. Anything goes, because the designer can do anything.
Absolutely worthless as a theory. It explains nothing.
The theory that "my cat did it" is just as valid as ID.
More so, since my cat actually exists.
You may have gained brownie points had you claimed it to be pure mathematics - let's assume a designer, and see what happens.
Unfortunately for you, even that fails - there are no constraints. No limits, no boundaries to work within.
Like the spoon, there is no model.
Quote:
Many ID websites have diagrams that point to the differences between the model of ID and that of Evolution.
I'm sure they do, and is completely meaningless.
Quote:
The question is what story does one buy. I see no reason as I pointed out above as to why evolution should have a locked monopoly on the theory of the origins of life. I think science can host under the scientific umbrella more than one theory of origins.
I believe firmly in the next 20 years we will see some changes in this area.
Fellowship
True. ID will again and again be shown to be worthless.
Evolution will continue as it has for the past 150 or so years.
Research will continue.
Once again, you will not change the way scientific theories are defined just so you can claim creationism is a scientific theory.
It's not. Never has been, and won't be until you come up with a real theory.
Kuhn also maintained that, contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate. Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance - "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly."
During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
And yet, young scientists who are not so deeply indoctrinated into accepted theories - a Newton, Lavoisier, or Einstein - can manage to sweep an old paradigm away. Such scientific revolutions come only after long periods of tradition-bound normal science, for "frameworks must be lived with and explored before they can be broken." However, crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another perspective, as a counterinstance and thus as a source of crisis. This is the "essential tension" in scientific research.
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Wow you make the point of the link I provided in the opening of this thread. Have you even read it?
Yes I did. He makes wishy washy arguments without substance.
It was not a scientific text, just his opinion of how things should be.
edit : ok, we are talking baout different links here.
The author clearly uses logic as you say above to demonstrate that indeed Science will allow concepts to be enough for theory.
But we have more than concepts. We have evidence that gravity exists.
It is strongly believed that gravity, like the other forces, should be quantised.
If it cannot, then something new will be proposed.
Quarks cannot be observed, but their actions certainly can.
Both of these ideas are constrained to be within the models which describe them.
They weren't just made up on a cold rainy day because the graduate students were bored.
I for one have no issue at all with this. The question then becomes if "Science" is welcome to such conceptual (without concrete proof or evidence) ideas to be part of a theory why then is the concept of ID not allowed this luxury?
Fellowship
Because a "religious belief" isn't enough.
The idea that we evolved is part of the "theory of evolution". No one is going to go back 3 billion years to gather the evidence for this. However, as long as the evidence continues to support the model which predicts this, then it is a perfectly valid proposal. You can also do experiments on very fast breeding creatures - I believe fruit flys are the creature of choice.
As was mentioned above, by your definition "Thor produces thunder" is a valid scientific theory.
A 'flat earth' is a valid scientific theory.
'The moon is made of green cheese' is a valid scientific theory.
As soon as you start modeling based on observation, you see that they are not.
Mathematical physics comes up with scientific theories that are way out there, for example, tachyons. The mathematics is there. The predictions are there. But as far as I know, there is no evidence. It is a scientific theory because it has made predictions that can be tested. Just because tachyons haven't been observed doesn't make the theory any less scientific. It just happens to be stuck half way through the loop. It may not be on the same scientific level as general relativity, say, but it is still science.
ID doesn't even do that. ID can be a scientific theory. It just needs a model and testable predictions. It also needs to be able to survive the peer review process, as has been previously pointed out.
You cannot arbitrarily change the playing field to suit yourself. If you cannot supply a theory that is subject to the same testing as other theories, then you don't have a scientific theory.
Until that happens, evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism is not.
edit: being able to falsify a theory is just one facet of the "scientific method". The circular argument fails because "the moon is made out of green cheese" is falsifiable. But it was never a scientific theory.
Originally posted by xenu
But I thought you were playing a game.
just take my advice---at least shetline has a line of reasoning
Originally posted by ena
just take my advice---at least shetline has a line of reasoning
Oh? shetline has managed to reason why you are so simpleminded and ignorant? I would like to see that.
Originally posted by xenu
We have evidence that gravity exists.
.....very good, we drop things and they fall.
We leave things to themselves, and they fall apart.
Always.
Every time.
It's always the same.
There is no roadmap from rocks to humans.
It is a theory.
Untestable.
Incomplete by definition.
Unusable.
I understand you define yourself in how much you participate in ultimate being, but your belief in the Miracle of Evolution is a theological leap of Faith that has literally nothing to do with science.
Is there something wrong with your brain?
I ask out of concern.
Originally posted by xenu
ena
Is there something wrong with your brain?
I ask out of concern.
Nooooooooo..............I make statements and you insult me---this isn't exaclty a paradigm of enlightened discussion.
I think I'll leave it to you.
Originally posted by ena
.
There is no roadmap from rocks to humans.
Hi Ena,
This is the second time that you've mentioned rocks becoming humans. Just to clarify, do you think evolution claims that rocks became humans?
Here's a fairly short review on the article that Fellowship has posted by Graham Oppy , for anybody ineterested. Link
Regards,
Sean
Originally posted by SeanM
Hi Ena,
This is the second time that you've mentioned rocks becoming humans. Just to clarify, do you think evolution claims that rocks became humans?
Regards,
Sean
It's more than that, but what I mean is rain falling on the rocks, washing the ingredients off creating a primordial soup followed by a a smorgasbord of serendipity and favorable random chance processes creating ordered systems---some of them with sencience.
Evolution is an old theory that has had its chance to prove itself---it just never did; it's time to give another theory a try. The problem is that "scientists" have made theological assumptions that they aren't willing to part with, namely the insistence in full participation with all being.
Originally posted by ena
It's more than that, but what I mean is rain falling on the rocks, washing the ingredients off creating a primordial soup followed by a a smorgasbord of serendipity and favorable random chance processes creating ordered systems---some of them with sencience.
Evolution is an old theory that has had its chance to prove itself---it just never did; it's time to give another theory a try. The problem is that "scientists" have made theological assumptions that they aren't willing to part with, namely the insistence in full participation with all being.
So wait, if there was any theory that hasn't had any evidence to support it over a long period it would creationism. Scientist generally dont ditch a theory that explains more than any other competing theory out there. For instance the Raleigh-Jeans theory (which was later modified by Plank etc) predicted much of the observed radiation of a black body but over predicted the amount of low wavelength light that one would expect to be emmitted. It explained more than any other theory and was accepted for that, it wasnt tossed out of the window because it didnt fit all of the observed properties. It was modified. Tossing it out would deny the legitimacy of the actual science that has supported the theory. Better explainations may replace the current theory of evolution, but they need to explain as well or better than evolution things that evolution explains well.
Like most americans I dont think ena understands statistics. If an event has a 1/10^9 chance of occuring, that doesnt mean it doesnt occur ever, it just means it has a small chance of occuring at any point. Things dont need a favorable chance to actually occur.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Like most americans I dont think ena understands statistics.
Please bobsky not today---I was just answering a question. And I have a headache. And I actually have to get something done. And there's all this birch pollen, my eyes look like pomegranates.
another time
Originally posted by ena
Please bobsky not today---I was just answering a question. And I have a headache. And I actually have to get something done. And there's all this birch pollen, my eyes look like pomegranates.
another time
feel better man...
For intelligent designers, if the result can always be predicted, then there is a naturalist theory behind the behavior. If the result cannot be predicted, then more evidence goes to support their theory.
For naturalists, if the result is not predicted, then the theory must be revised. If the result is as predicted, then more evidence goes to support their theory.
As long as there are results that cannot be predicted, there is room for intelligent design. Mankind must know the answer to every question to disprove intelligent design. Since I don't see that ever happening, intelligent designers have a leg to stand on.
It all falls down on the shoulders of mathematics. The Principia Mathematica was written to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 and from that the basis of mathematics is formed. There is no such text for any other science (that I am aware of), but all other sciences rely on it. If we can boil evolution, creation of life, even the big bang down to mathematics, then and only then will intelligent designers have no leg to stand on.
Originally posted by ena
"Is too! Is too!" answers just don't make muster.
Nor do your "Is not is not *ducks out of thread*" answers.
Originally posted by ena
Nooooooooo..............I make statements and you insult me---this isn't exaclty a paradigm of enlightened discussion.
I think I'll leave it to you.
Actually I am simply being extremely sacrastic.
It's all you and your incoherent posts are worthy of.
Does this make sense to anybody?
Philosophers hey? Gotta love 'em.
The effects of forces, fields, molecules, quarks can be observed.
If I develop a model of forces and predict that X happens as a result of these forces, then I hope to see X happen. If Y happens, it's back to the drawing board.
"With the death of positivism in the 1950s, demarcationists took a different tack. Other semantic criteria emerged, such as Sir Karl Popper's falsifiability. According to Popper, scientific theories were more meaningful than nonscientific ideas because they referred only to empirically falsifiable entities. Yet this, too, proved to be a problematic criterion. First, falsification turns out to be difficult to achieve. Rarely are the core commitments of theories directly tested via prediction. Instead, predictions occur when core theoretical commitments are conjoined with auxiliary hypotheses, thus always leaving open the possibility that auxiliary hypotheses, not core commitments, are responsible for failed predictions."
Hence you go back and modify the theory. Like Newton did.
"Newtonian mechanics, for example, assumed as its core three laws of motion and the theory of universal gravitation. On the basis of these, Newton made a number of predictions about the positions of planets in the solar system. When observations failed to corroborate some of his predictions, he did not reject his core assumptions. Instead, he scrutinized some of his auxiliary hypotheses to explain the discrepancies between theory and observation. For example, he examined his working assumption that planets were perfectly spherical and influenced only by gravitational force. As Imre Lakatos has shown, Newton's refusal to repudiate his core in the face of anomalies enabled him to refine his theory and eventually led to its tremendous success. Newton's refusal to accept putatively falsifying results certainly did not call into question the scientific status of his gravitational theory or his three laws."
Nope, because he had a model within which to make predictions.
The model turned out to be pretty good. Some assumptions weren't.
Note : He had a model. He made assumptions. He made predictions. He tested his model against observational data. He modified his assumptions, while remaining consistent within his model.
Good science.
"The function of auxiliary hypotheses in scientific testing suggests that many scientific theories, including those in so-called hard sciences, may be very difficult, if not impossible, to falsify conclusively. Yet many theories that have been falsified in practice via the consensus judgment of the scientific community must qualify as scientific according to the falsifiability criterion. Since they have been falsified, they are obviously falsifiable, and since they are falsifiable, they would seem to be scientific."
Wrong. The model can be falsified. It it had been predicted that the earth should be in a highly elliptical orbit, and no amount of tweaking could change that, then the model is wrong.
We don't believe the earth is at the center of the solar system any more, do we?
The theory of tacyons may be hard to verify, or falsify. But mathematical physics has the tendency to blur the line between the physical sciences and pure mathematics.
So long as the theory remains mathematically consistent within the model, there are no problems. The predictions are now theorems, with rigorous mathematical proofs.
"And so it has gone generally with demarcation criteria. Many theories that have been repudiated on evidential grounds express the very epistemic and methodological virtues (testability, falsifiability, observability, etc.) that have been alleged to characterize true science. Many theories that are held in high esteem lack some of the allegedly necessary and sufficient features of proper science. As a result, with few exceptions most contemporary philosophers of science regard the question "What methods distinguish science from nonscience?" as both intractable and uninteresting. What, after all, is in a name? Certainly not automatic epistemic warrant or authority. Thus philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific but whether it is true or warranted by the evidence. Thus, as Martin Eger has summarized, "demarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world.""
So is the world of the philosopher. I had a professor who laughed all the way through a philosophers talk on the nature of black holes. Why? Because my professor was an "expert" on black holes, and he realised that the philosopher had no idea. He was unable to grasp concepts that were easily explained using some reasonably advanced tensor algebra.
It simply looks like philosophers need to understand the difference between current valid theories, and past invalidated theories.
The steady state theory was a scientific theory. Just because we now have the big bang doesn't mean the steady state theory is no longer a scientific theory.
Pre-DNA theories (that pass the tests of what it is to be a scientific theory) are still scientific theories.
Pre-quark theories (that pass the tests of what it is to be a scientific theory) are still scientific theories.
They have just all been superseded.
To suggest that "Many theories that have been repudiated on evidential grounds express the very epistemic and methodological virtues (testability, falsifiability, observability, etc.) that have been alleged to characterize true science" somehow invalidates what it means to be a scientific theory is either ignorance or dishonesty.
They are still scientific theories if they pass the tests on what a scientific theory is. Since the quote claims they did indeed pass the test, then they were, and still are scientific theories. They are just no longer valid.
"Many theories that are held in high esteem lack some of the allegedly necessary and sufficient features of proper science."
Such as?
QCD requires quarks. No quarks are observed. Their actions are, and predictions can be made, which have been confirmed.
QCD is a scientific theory. Would one of these philosophers say otherwise?
No one has seen a black hole. The models exist. Predictions are made. Evidence exists that such things may well exist. Would one of these philosophers say this isn't a scientific theory?
Ever seen the weak or strong force? Are the theories describing these forces scientific theories? Of course they are.
Any philosopher that claims a scientific theory isn't one simply because one or more assumptions or predictions have not, or can not be directly verified, is simply playing semantic games. While the model continues to be consistent with the observations, the predictions and assumptions are valid. It is no less a scientific theory because of it.
If evidence shows that one or more predictions or assumptions are wrong, then the model is modified, or scrapped if there is no way out.
As an example, Evolution with its model, predictions and assumptions is a scientific theory.
Creationism has no model, it makes no predictions and it's one assumption - that god exists - can never be proven. It is not a scientific theory.
Originally posted by BR
Nor do your "Is not is not *ducks out of thread*" answers.
have you seen a pomegranate? ---not pretty.
What I should really do is take a couple of Benadryl to calm down the redness---get REAL LOOPY---and come in here and make a fool out of myself.
.....and yes, there's a joke there somewhere.
Originally posted by xenu
"Yet as is now well known, positivism soon self-destructed. Philosophers came to realize that positivism's verificationist criterion of meaning did not achieve its own standard. That is, the assumptions of positivism turn out to be neither empirically verifiable nor logically undeniable. Furthermore, positivism's verificationist ideal misrepresented much actual scientific practice. Many scientific theories refer to unverifiable and unobservable entities such as forces, fields, molecules, quarks and universal laws. "
Quote from linked doc. (above)
Does this make sense to anybody?
Philosophers hey? Gotta love 'em.
remark by xenu in reply to quote from linked doc. (above)
I think what the Dr. said made complete sense. Not exactly hard to follow. He is simply saying science can not rely solely on [positive observable data] to suffice for a proposed scientific theory. One could say ID fits the following "the assumptions are neither empirically varifiable nor logically undeniable"
Ever seen the weak or strong force? Are the theories describing these forces scientific theories? Of course they are.
quote from xenu in the last reply. (above)
I agree with you with this xenu I have never seen the weak or strong force.
As well I have not seen the "Designer" in the model for ID.
The question is why the discrimination against this "designer" by some in science?
Is it too metaphysical?
metaphysical defined: 1 Of or relating to metaphysics.
2 Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
Science affords other "scientific theories" to be based in part on [non-positive observable data] "metaphysical" you could say, so why the hostility against another theory for origins of life on planet Earth?
There are so many theories such as string theory and others that are based on [non-positive observable data] "metaphysics" yet they are "ok" in a scientific context. Many theories have a level of a leap of faith with them yet they are scientific???? What gives?
If science allows other "scientific theories" to incorporate metaphysical aspects to the model why the fuss over ID?
You say xenu that ID has no model....
ID does have a general model as does evolution.
ID takes the stance that there indeed is a designer that with intelligence designed life as compared to just chance and mutation being responsible for highly advanced life forms.
Many ID websites have diagrams that point to the differences between the model of ID and that of Evolution.
The question is what story does one buy. I see no reason as I pointed out above as to why evolution should have a locked monopoly on the theory of the origins of life. I think science can host under the scientific umbrella more than one theory of origins.
I believe firmly in the next 20 years we will see some changes in this area.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Quote from linked doc. (above)
[/b] remark by xenu in reply to quote from linked doc. (above)
I think what the Dr. said made complete sense. Not exactly hard to follow. He is simply saying science can not rely solely on [positive observable data] to suffice for a proposed scientific theory. One could say ID fits the following "the assumptions are neither empirically varifiable nor logically undeniable"
[/b] quote from xenu in the last reply. (above)
[/B]
Lucky science doesn't then. Plain English would have sufficed.
A scientific theory requires models as well. As well as predictions and assumptions, all of which are consistent within the model.
A hugh bonus is the ability to compare with observation. Wouldn't be much of a physical theory if there are no physical observations.
I agree with you with this xenu I have never seen the weak or strong force.
As well I have not seen the "Designer" in the model for ID.
Because there is no model for ID.
The question is why the discrimination against this "designer" by some in science?
Is it too metaphysical?
metaphysical defined: 1 Of or relating to metaphysics.
2 Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
There is no model for ID.
Religious belief is not a model.
Science affords other "scientific theories" to be based in part on [non-positive observable data] "metaphysical" you could say, so why the hostility against another theory for origins of life on planet Earth?
No science doesn't.
The current theory describing the stong force make predictions concerning the way the force acts on other objects. These predictions are made within a model, and must be consistent within the model. We don't have to observe the strong force, because it's actions can be observed. The theory says, if the strong force exists, we expect "this" to happen. Guess what? We see "this" happening. Therefore we are happy with the model and assumptions.
Nothing metaphysical about it.
There are so many theories such as string theory and others that are based on [non-positive observable data] "metaphysics" yet they are "ok" in a scientific context. Many theories have a level of a leap of faith with them yet they are scientific???? What gives?
No they are not based on metaphysics.
String theory is developed within a model and is mathematically consistent within that model. It makes predictions. We don't have to observe the "strings". We just need to ensure the predictions are observable, and agree with observation.
Nothing metaphysical about it.
Is general relativity metaphysical?
By your definition it is.
If science allows other "scientific theories" to incorporate metaphysical aspects to the model why the fuss over ID?
Because science doesn't.
Once again, you don't need to physically observe a phenomena to verify it within a model - its effects on other objects, as predicted within the model, is enough.
Nothing metaphysical about it.
You say xenu that ID has no model....
ID does have a general model as does evolution.
ID takes the stance that there indeed is a designer that with intelligence designed life as compared to just chance and mutation being responsible for highly advanced life forms.
A religious belief does not make a model.
Neither does it make a scientific theory.
What are the constraints of ID?
Is it confined by the speed of light? By the age of the earth?
Oh, that's right, the designer can do anything.
Absolutely worthless as a theory. It explains nothing.
What are the predictions? Oh that's right. Anything goes, because the designer can do anything.
Absolutely worthless as a theory. It explains nothing.
The theory that "my cat did it" is just as valid as ID.
More so, since my cat actually exists.
You may have gained brownie points had you claimed it to be pure mathematics - let's assume a designer, and see what happens.
Unfortunately for you, even that fails - there are no constraints. No limits, no boundaries to work within.
Like the spoon, there is no model.
Many ID websites have diagrams that point to the differences between the model of ID and that of Evolution.
I'm sure they do, and is completely meaningless.
The question is what story does one buy. I see no reason as I pointed out above as to why evolution should have a locked monopoly on the theory of the origins of life. I think science can host under the scientific umbrella more than one theory of origins.
I believe firmly in the next 20 years we will see some changes in this area.
Fellowship
True. ID will again and again be shown to be worthless.
Evolution will continue as it has for the past 150 or so years.
Research will continue.
Once again, you will not change the way scientific theories are defined just so you can claim creationism is a scientific theory.
It's not. Never has been, and won't be until you come up with a real theory.
There is a lot of truth to the following:
Kuhn also maintained that, contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate. Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance - "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly."
During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
And yet, young scientists who are not so deeply indoctrinated into accepted theories - a Newton, Lavoisier, or Einstein - can manage to sweep an old paradigm away. Such scientific revolutions come only after long periods of tradition-bound normal science, for "frameworks must be lived with and explored before they can be broken." However, crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another perspective, as a counterinstance and thus as a source of crisis. This is the "essential tension" in scientific research.
Taken from:
This Link
Ohh and this is something that is very interesting to me regarding the issue of what exactly is required within the makeup of a "scientific theory"
Karl Popper wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable.
I take it then this is a required aspect of a scientific theory?
Well then how can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence?
As you can imagine I have many questions that still have no answer.
Fellowship