Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science

Deadrat wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1133746483.309623.24700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Deadrat wrote:
> > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1133688556.914418.185820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1133681523.057594.102690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > josephus wrote:
> > > > > > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did a write-up (link below) proposing a version of ID that does
> > > > > > > > belong in science textbooks. It is based on a long debate I
> > > > > > > > participated in called "Is String Theory as hard to test as ID?" in
> > > > > > > > alt.atheism. I argue that ID can be "science", although a weak
> > > > > > > > science. I suggest it belongs in textbooks because good textbooks
> > > > > > > > should anticipate common questions, and ID-like questions do happen in
> > > > > > > > biology class. I've witnessed it with my own ears in my school days.
> > > > > > > > The book can briefly describe it and then explain that it is difficult
> > > > > > > > to test with the scientific process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/intel.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. Don't let my arrogant handle scare
> > > > > > > > you; critique away...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -T-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually the heart of your NON-definition is the untestablity. I know
> > > > > > > you can't think of a test. I can't think of a test. A lot of people
> > > > > > > cant think of a test. MAYBE there is NO TEST. ID fails on NO TEST.
> > > > > > > Science requires REAL evidence and Any theory is tested by the evidence.
> > > > > > > and ID HAS NO EVIDENCE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NO TEST, NO EVIDENCE, ergo ID is not a theory.
> > > > > > > josephus
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My argument does NOT depend on ID obtaining the level of "theory". See
> > > > > > also item 3 in the article. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Q:] "3. The other hard-to-test ideas like MU [Anthropic Principle] and
> > > > > > String Theory are not considered "science" either by some because they
> > > > > > have yet to be tested. Thus, using them to suggest ID should be
> > > > > > included is misleading.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [A:] The definition of "science" appears to not yet have a consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you please present some evidence for this statement?
> > > >
> > > > If there is a consensus definition, where is it?
> > >
> > > This one isn't really very difficult, and I think I'll leave it as an exercise
> > > for the reader. But I'll note that I asked for some evidence for your
> > > statement, and look what I got.
> >
> >
> > The *default* is non-consensus. If there is a consensus, it should be
> > trivial to produce the consensus definition (unless some org charges
> > money for its use, such as the definition of SQL, but that has not been
> > demostrated.)
> >
> >
> > [....]
> > > Again, you are making the charge that scientists have disingenuously changed
> > > the definition of science to exclude IDiocy.
> >
> > I am only saying it may appear that way to the courts. I won't
> > speculate on their internal motivations at this time.
>
> I'm interested in why you think this subject will be of any interest to a court.


Who knows what the heck the court will delve into. If things like MU
have historically been treated as science, and then later yanked when
brought up to evo proponents, it will *look* fishy. I am just the
messenger.


> >
> > > > > > If "yet to be tested" is a reason to exclude an idea, then we would
> > > > > > have to exclude the likes of relativity from being considered a
> > > > > > "scientific idea" until the point of being tested. (The first test was
> > > > > > an eclipse observation). To me that is plain silly. If relativity was
> > > > > > not considered "science" until the moment it was tested, then what
> > > > > > should it have been called before the test took place? It was not
> > > > > > religion."
> > > > >
> > > > > If it's "yet to be tested," then it's not an accepted explanation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So MU and ST are not "science"? See item 3 in the article. The
> > > > Supreme Court may ask the very same thing, so you better prepare a good
> > > > answer for it.
> > >
> > > As far as I know, the multiverse hypothesis is speculation that's not really testable
> > > and isn't claimed as part of quantum mechanics.
> >
> >
> > Is it a "scientific idea" or is it not? If not, what would you call it?
>
> "Speculation" not good enough for you?


Scientific speculation. All useful scientific ideas start out as
speculation. Speculation is the seed of science.


> If it can't be tested, it's a nonscientific idea
> about a scientific theory.

Then why was it *treated* like a scientific idea by many science
publications? Did they make a mistake? None of you cared until it was
compared to ID. That suggests you are biased. Face up to it, people.
Don't let emotions fart with your logic.

Your dispise for ID'ers sticks out like a sore thumb. You treat them
like the plague and call them all kinds of names. The evidence that you
are baised is strong. (Maybe they deserve it, but that is moot.)


>
> > See also #3.
> >
> >
> > > String theory is an incomplete
> > > mathematical model for which tests are beyond our current capability. It is an
> > > area of investigation. What distinguishes string theory from IDiocy is that the former
> > > could be invalidated. Its mathematics may lead to erroneous conclusions or it
> > > may predict results that don't obtain. In any case, right or wrong, the future foundation
> > > of particle physics or the future candidate for the junk heap, it isn't religion. And thus
> > > the Supreme Court won't have the slightest interest in it. Especially as no one teaches
> > > the theory as confirmed science in public high schools (or anywhere else).
> >
> > The "math argument" is also addressed in my write-up. As far as "in the
> > classroom", see #2.
> >
> > >
> > > What do you think the legal case against IDiocy is all about?
> >
> > Separation of church-and-state.
>
> Good. Then we won't hear any more about bias or the multiverse hypothesis?


I don't see the connection. If the court sees no distinction between MU
and ID as far as testability, and (smartly) ignore ID supporter bias
claims, then ID should get the same classification as MU. You guys are
afraid of MU it appears.


> > > > > If it's
> > > > > not testable, then it's not science.
> > > >
> > > > It has not been proven to be inharently "untestable".
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what "proven" means in this case. Are you asking for proof of a
> > > negative? That aside, whatever results you come up with are consistent with
> > > an Intelligent Designer. No matter what genetic configurations you look at,
> > > there's no way to determine which ones were set up by the Designer and
> > > which ones weren't.
> >
> > So? One can say the same about the laws of our universe and MU. Being
> > highly bendable does not appear to make an idea non-scientific by
> > itself.
>
> I'll say it again. If the multiverse hypothesis isn't testable, it's not science,
> just an interesting speculation.


Not every scientific authority appears to exclude MU. You are not the
Dictator of Science.

[....snipped MU bush dancing....]

> > And I wish to ask you, would the example prime/Pi alternating pattern
> > not change the standing of ID at all? Zilch change? That is an extreme,
> > stubburn view if you ask me. Evo cannot be proven 100% either (unless
> > you wait a billion+ years).
>
> No science strives for 200 proof. Science isn't about proof; it's about
> evidence. If you told me that you expect to test for a prime/Pi alternating
> pattern, and you told me the encoding, then I might be impressed when
> you presented evidence of such a pattern. If you're just looking for
> patterns and you're free to define them any way you want, .... not so
> impressive.

Impressing is not the goal post.


> > There seem to be almost as many stubburn aholes on the evo side as the
> > creationist side. It appears realigion is not a necessity for zealotry
> > after all.
>
> Don't mistake stubbornness for zealotry. Everyone who knows a little biology
> on this newsgroup can give you results that would lead them to question the
> validity of evolution. That's the hallmark of science -- all understandings are
> tentative and subject to change based on new evidence. I'll bet there's not a
> single creationist who would abandon his religious beliefs for anything. That's the
> hallmark of zealotry.

ID does not have to be tied to religion.

>
> And counting assholes hardly matters. By all account Newton was a huge asshole.
> We still count him as one of the greatest scientists of all time.

By the criteria some of you guys use, we should rip the *** Newton
right from the textbooks and burn them. Newton fiddled with misticism
and by some accounts that made him curious about gravity.

Religion Influenced Theory of Gravity. Books Burned. News at 11pm!

>
> Deadrat
>
> > -T-
> >

-T-

.

Loading