Re: Bothered by "falsification" criteria for scence


topmind wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> > > > Speculation is an important part of science, but valuable speculation
> > > > results in real research that gets things done. Look what ID has
> > > > accomplished in the last decade. What have things like the anthropic
> > > > principle accomplished in the history of science?
> > >
> > >
> > > It may influence the way we approach quantum physics and cosmology.
> > > Maybe the next breakthru in quantum phyz will happen when somebody
> > > approaches the universal constants as *if* they were genes in a
> > > DNA-like string theory and the particular value of those genes vary per
> > > "offspring" of universe.
> > >
> > > Speculation is part of science. Speculation influences science. It may
> > > not be the complete path of science, but being a part of science is
> > > still "science".
> >
> > For some reason you just keep missing the point. Speculation and
> > curiosity drive science, but you can't get anywhere unless you can test
> > your notions. Why would you want to claim more for some notion than
> > you actually can? What good does it do? Anyone can speculate all they
> > want to, but they can't claim that they are accomplishing anything.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Why are you so caught up in "claims"? AP is a concept to explore, and
> that includes exploring to see if it is by chance testable.

Anyone is free to explore whatever they want to, but it doesn't make
sense to claim that what you are doing is science if all you ever do is
speculate. Not only that, but this isn't like you are exploring new
ground or something that hasn't been covered before. Thousands of
years of zip for a concept make it pretty hard to justify that you
aren't wasting your time, let alone, that you can call what you are
doing science.

Why do you want to call it science anyway? To justify wasting your
time on it? Anyone with any sense knows by now that you'd be better
off treating AP as a hobby and concentrate on something new that might
amount to something. This isn't because speculation is bad, it is
because speculation is all that anyone has come up with for the concept
in the history of human existence. Can you claim that the concept has
been ignored? There are tough questions in science and we keep
hammering at them, but no one can claim that what they are doing is
good science if they are never able to verify their claims. Science
isn't just the easy part of making things up in your head, it is the
hard part about trying to determine if what you have thought up is
close to what nature actually is.

I can claim that angels are created using belly button lint, and the
more placental mammals we have the better off the universe will be.
How do you differentiate that from the AP speculations? How are you
going to measure the impact of all the outies relative to the innies in
terms of belly button lint?

Look at string theory, plenty of guys are working hard to try and put
together something that they can put forward to add to our body of
scientific knowledge, but you don't see most of these guys claiming
victory and going home. They are trying to do the hard part of
science, but they haven't been able to claim that they have gotten the
job done, yet. They know what they have to do, and they understand
that they haven't done it. Even string theory has pretty much gotten
past the initial speculation part and has been testing and refining
models for quite sometime, and we still can't tell if the concept is
scientifically valid.

Ron Okimoto

>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Zero is a pretty
> > > > definite number in rating what has come out of these types of things.
> > > > Unless you add the accomplishments where the guys had the wrong idea,
> > > > but stumbled upon something that was legit you get zero. There are
> > > > just as many cases in the textbooks where the anthropic principle has
> > > > been verified as there is for verification of the IDers designer doing
> > > > something in nature. Zero. What kind of science are you going to do
> > > > with results like that?
> > > >
> > > > Ron Okimoto
> > >
> > > -T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Biblical Genealogies - "God" is All Knowing: Evoluti
    ... Speculation is not science, nor is the best educated assumption ... Babylonians, when dealing with seconds and minutes and, in part, even ... Court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham", was ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: This link works joeturn
    ... Play Video Space Video:NASA Funding On Hold In Congress ... By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap ... Speculation that life has been discovered beyond Earth ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >>> the definition of science to exclude IDiocy. ... Who knows what the heck the court will delve into. ... >>> As far as I know, the multiverse hypothesis is speculation that's not really testable ... > We still count him as one of the greatest scientists of all time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Space and Time
    ... shook the very foundation of Science. ... how can you conflate "absolute space" (which is ... is a speculation. ... The Paradox of The Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: NASAs Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar system so far
    ... If we are talking science, I believe in making observations, ... about images is not scientific; ... The scientific process often starts with speculation. ... underlying physics is well enough understood. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)