Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science

topmind wrote:

>
>
>>Actually evidence is what you need. That would be testable. even
>>reproducible. No we cannot detect other universes.
>
>
> Cannot? I don't think researchers agree that they are inharently
> undetectable. Some even speculate that other universes can potentially
> crash into ours.
>
>
>>I know why but it is
>>not germain to this conversation.
>
>
> I am checking your "falsifiable" criteria against other things
> considered
> "science". That is one way to test definitions: see if they still apply
> to things that they have in the past.
>
>
>>All science, astronomy, physics,
>>quantum mechanics, or chemistry that I have ever been exposed to is
>>falsifiable.
>
>
> Evolution is perhaps not even falsifiable. You cannot prove that it
> never happened anywhere at any time. If you use the "jillion cameras"
> approach, then that too can falsify ID.
I dont even understand this statement You acknowledge evolution is
true and ID is false?
>
you do not seem to diffentiate between data and explanation. A
theory is an explanation of data. Data is not falsifiable because it
either exists or does not exist. should we claim it exists, then it is
falsifiable especially if it does not. But data that has been tested
and found true by 100000 testers tends to be accepted as true. not
absolute truth just true data. This fact has to do with ALL science
from psychology to quantum mechanics. It is in fact how we accrete
knowledge.

You cannot falsify data. (in fact it is the way to be censured using a
different sense) so science is very particular that you cannot fake
data. Nothing will make them more angry than to find out you "MADE UP"
your evidence. The reason is that THEORIES come and go, but all
THEORIES depend on the evidence. That is why THEORIES are falsifiable
and data is not and that is why science goes to great lengths to certify
data is true.

Truifiable does not describe data. because DATA is NEVER guaranteed
absolutely true. It will usually be stated with error bars. CRC does
this. Why? because the data is only true within limits. CRC is one of
the best references around. But it says the average value for the
earths orbit is 1.496 E11 +/- .0001 E11. My general value is
1.4959787066 E11 +/- .000000001 E11. notice that both terms agree up
to precision. The second value comes from the Astronomical Journal.
This is the standard way science refers to data. It is approximate
within limits. But I know I can calculate the theoretical value and I
get 1.00000003697 on my calculator. The posted value from JPL is
1.00000003.



>
>
>>Show me a concrete example of a truifiable science. dont just say it is
>>show me how it is.
>
>
> Any theory that makes specific predictions. When those predictions
> come true, the theory has been boosted. Relativity predicts gravity
> waves, for example. (We are still trying to detect them.)
>
but this is falsifiable science We have no guarantee of detection. But
the fact we are looking is to accept or refute the theory. It is not
about collected data. it is about the theory.
josephus


>
>> josephus
>>
>
>
> -T-
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bushie killing science education in Tejas
    ... regardless of any advances in science or research technology. ... scientists, all the textbooks and in all the classrooms. ... They had no evidence at the time, no idea HOW they worked, but they ... Then you run experiments to try to falsify the theory. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Bushie killing science education in Tejas
    ... regardless of any advances in science or research technology. ... scientists, all the textbooks and in all the classrooms. ... They had no evidence at the time, no idea HOW they worked, but they ... Then you run experiments to try to falsify the theory. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Rant: Big Bang theory ridiculous
    ... device an experiment that could falsify it. ... Although there is a lot of "positive" evidence for relativity ... science took a negative approach (i.e., ... "But most scientists believe that "somehow, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... I dispute your charactericterization of science. ... What test do you propose which can falsify ID? ... Same with evo or SETI. ... As for evolution: it exists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... I dispute your charactericterization of science. ... What test do you propose which can falsify ID? ... Same with evo or SETI. ...
    (talk.origins)