| Subject: Comments |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/16/04 5:44pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Scientific theory or good scientific theory?" on 10/16/04 3:12pm
>
>ID meets that. One could potentially falsify an ID
>claim (with the current version of ID) by showing how
>it could have developed naturally,
Assuming that a natural mechanism of life was found, would YOU consider ID theory to be falsified, or would you adopt the typical ID modus operandi wherein ID is retooled to point out more areas where information is lacking that "a designer" could then be snuck in?
I don't think ID is capable of being falsified on this criteria at all. Stakes would be pulled and replanted in other areas of ignorance.
or yielding
>unfavorable (for ID) calculations from the explanatory
>filter.
You've never really defined what an explanatory filter is, or how it works, or how it should be used, so I really don't know what sort of hypothetical information you are talking about here that could falsify ID.
>
>Depends what you mean by "postive evidence."
By "positive evidence" I mean evidence that does not rely on a negative.
Here's an example: I predict that my gnomes will NOT be seen ever by anyone because they are invisible.
The "not" prediction here is weak.
Here's a better prediction: I predict my gnomes are invisible, but caught in the right spectrum of morning light, one can catch a glimpse of their red hats.
I've made a prediction about something that doesn't concern a negative. Why is that better? Because predictions that rely on a "NOT" for evidence are a dime a dozen because the "not" evidence is NOT necessarily evidence for my theory. It's simply absent, and anything that works in that absence as an explanation automatically has "evidence" by that criteria.
Going back to my gnomes if I wake up in the morning and I don't see some hats, then what I know for sure is that that particular prediction is not supported by reality. If I had gotten up and my prediction was no gnomes would be seen because they are invisible, and I didn't see gnomes, I don't really have evidence for my theory because any GIVEN theory that explains the "not" data is equally good. (e.g. we are all gnome blind instead of them being invisible)
It does
>predict that a natural means would not be discovered,
>though also earmarks of intelligent design (e.g.
>predicting the existence of biological information)
>etc.
But as I lengthily discussed above, "nots" aren't particularly strong evidence for a theory, especially if that's the only prediction made. I could just as easily postulate that we won't find a natural mechanism because the mechanism is invisible, like my gnomes. Would I have evidence then by your criteria for my invisible mechanism theory?
Basically think of it in terms of more casual
>design detection. ID can be a very rational theory
>depending on the circumstances, and in principle the
>same can be true for life.
I think you are defining rational as "most likely in light of experience", and my point has been and continues to be that experience can be terribly misleading.
>
>ID is quite subject to refutation, e.g. the
>major prediction being refuted.
I suppose my invisible gnome theory is too. Have I convinced you of my theory? (It seems to have as much force as your ID postulation)
>
>It sure does: the designer uses similar structures for
>similar functions.
Why would a designer that designed life be limited by such a thing? (not to mention that the parts he/she designed are not optimal even by regular human standards)
As a programmer, I use similar
>code for similar functions.
As a programmer, you are limited by the semantics of the language you program in. Are you insinuating a designer is limited by some set of rules?
>
>Organs deteriorate and become vestigial.
So the design is falling apart? The designer felt the need to include redudant organs just in case? Are we dealing with a clumsy, paranoid designer? Or, are we dealing with a designer who made mistakes but then proudly pronounces "I meant to do that!"?
>Again, similar structures...
And again, why?
However, ID does explain things
>like the existence of those sophisticated biochemical
>machines resistant to gradualist scenarios (e.g.
>irreducible complexity)
I think the problem with "irreducible complexity" is that nobody has shown why and by what criteria the thing should be "irreducible" in the first place. Because something may not work the same when taken apart isn't necessarily a problem for evolution, especially since evolution disposes of its mistakes quickly.
I'm inclined to ask "So what?" to the person who says something doesn't work the same pulled apart as it does together. There's no reason that it would HAVE to act the same way. Maybe it'll do the job even better. Maybe it'll do the job worse. Given a canvas that is random in nature allows all sorts of "complex" behavior to arise, but it's only complex because all the mistakes were burned long before.
, the origin of biological
>information, the sophistication and workings of the
>blood cascade, the chemical incompatibility of those
>RNA components and many other facets surrounding the
>origin of life etc.
I fail to see how evolution can't explain these things. I could see where the process would be much nastier, but I don't see how it couldn't explain these observations.
>
>Then you should read Dembski's The Design
>Inference. How does evolution justify itself
>mathematically by the way (apart from
>microevolutionary statistics).
I'm not sure what you would qualify as "micro" evolutionary mathematics, but I think equations like mutation rates and population shifts which are mathematical notions based upon evolutionary assumptions seem to turn out excruciatingly close to reality, which is a step in the right direction as far as mathematical underpinnings are concerned.
Does Dembski produce any mathematical predictions based upon ID assumptions?
>
>
>Many ID adherents have made their claims quite
>specific. Again, perhaps reading some ID material
>would be beneficial.
Maybe THEY have, but so far you really haven't. If you want to use them as a source, great. Until you convince me that ID is legit, I'm of course not going to be very interested in reading about it.
When in fact I have read ID claims before, they play the same song and dance that you seem to be performing. Hide behind the multitudinous "others". Leave the predictions fairly loose or base them on negative cases. As you might imagine, that doesn't encourage me to read anyone else's claims about ID.
>
>Additionally, many of your criteria seem to be what
>characterizes a good scientific theory rather
>than a scientific theory per se. There are
>dozens of theories that definitely fit the category of
>being "scientific" even though they are discredited
>and don't match your criteria very well at all.
These are the criteria that are acceptable to ME, which is why I posted under the title "Things I'd consider". Having had fairly extensive scientific training concerning research and the ethics thereof, I'm fairly sure that most other scientists would agree with my assessment. If they don't, and they practice some other form of accepting theories, good for them.
To me, however, based on what I think to be pretty basic assumptions, many so-called scientific theories don't make the cut. ID is not a scientific theory based on my criteria of what is acceptable. Maybe somewhere out there some scientists do accept it, but I'd be inclined to say they weren't very good scientists if they did.
ID isn't accepted by mainstream scientists I suspect because I'm not the only one with the above criteria in mind.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 