Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135649615.278232.14160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Deadrat wrote:
> > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1135633423.449045.145440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:1135579901.274105.152520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1135473070.598884.57870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

> > Nonsense will not make them rich. It will insure that no one buys
> > their books.
>
> > OK, how do jurors who aren't reacting emotionally reach a verdict?
> > Or do you think they all simply use their emotions?
>
>
> I've been on a Jury where the definition of "conceal" was a key issue
> on a weapons concealment case. It all came down to personal opinions.
> Everybody was using different "logic" to interpret it. Generally the
> dude was aquitted because the language of the law was so damned vague.
>

And yet you managed to come to a decision.

>
> > > >
> > > > > I don't see it. I
> > > > > see ID fitting in with lots of other "borderline" ideas such MU, SETI,
> > > > > reverse time travel, worm-holes, etc. You have not made a good case why
> > > > > it scores even lower than those. Your explanations seem to flunk one or
> > > > > more of those also.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can tell, ID fits rights in with MU and reverse time travel.
> > > > Worm holes require technology far beyond our capabilities,
> > >
> > > > and you
> > > > simply don't seem to understand what SETI is doing.
> > >
> > > Is this your unfriendly indirect way of saying, "I know what SETI
> > > really does, but I cannot articulate it and thus cannot articulate why
> > > you are wrong about SETI"?
> >
> > I know and I've articulated it. They're looking for particular signals
> > from particular places. They can tell me in advance what kind of
> > signal they're looking for and how they'll know when they receive one.
>
>
> Only for *initial* identification. Only to narrow down what to explore.

And that's their scientific program. The initial identification. They have
a clear set of criteria for that. You don't.

<snip>

> > > ID is as testable as SETI's life. Now if you want to argue that
> > > SETI is unscientific, please do. I've been waiting....
> > >
> >
> > Your DNA pattern search is unlike SETI's signal search.
>
> How so? I don't see any definition-busting difference.

They have defined search criteria for signals; you don't.

>
> > > > > > The Dover case is sufficient in the real world to keep ID, including your
> > > > > > version, out of public schools. Even in your theoretical world, in which
> > > > > > your ID theory stands on its own, no serious text book publisher would
> > > > > > waste space on that theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe some are not "serious" (by your standards).
> > > >
> > > > Well, sure. Creationist text book publishers, for instance.
> > >
> > >
> > > Good. The establishment can use a little stirring every now and then.
> >
> > What does that mean? Ignorance can be a force for good?
>
> Again, I propose debunking ID, describing that it has a weak evidence
> portfolio. How in carnations is that spreading "ignorance"? You are
> being paranoid.

There isn't room in the school year to debunk all the nonsense that comes
along. How about we just teach science in science class?

<snip>

> > > > > > > The universe does not care what humans
> > > > > > > think nor do on Sundays and it will do what it does regardless of what
> > > > > > > we do or think. If a Darwin Cult forms, does that act make evolution
> > > > > > > less likely to be true or less scientific? No, it does not. So why
> > > > > > > should creationist support change the ranking of an *idea*?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because the Darwin Cult doesn't exist, never has, and wouldn't affect
> > > > > > biology if it did.
> > > > >
> > > > > By your argument it would. If vocal people start promoting Darwin in
> > > > > textbooks for religious purposes, then it would only be fair to at
> > > > > least condiser removal.
> > > >
> > > > Not until evolution could be shown to have anything but a secular purpose
> > > > and effect.
> > >
> > > Since a Darwin cult or a science cult is a potential, that is a risky
> > > criteria to nail your home to.
> >
> > There is absolutely no chance of there being a "Darwin cult" that includes
> > people who understand biology. There will sooner be a "Darwin cult"
> > that worships the city in Australia. But even if such cults existed (and
> > for your example, they would have to set educational policy, not just
> > be running around), it wouldn't matter. Everyone concludes that teaching
> > biology has a secular purpose and effect. Thus no one would look into
> > the policy makers' motivations. Do you not get this?
>
> And if they did try to set educational policy?

It still wouldn't matter. As long as the policy is entirely secular (and biology
qualifies), the motives for teaching the policy are immaterial.

>
> > > > > You are not fair-handed. You hear ID and you act
> > > > > like a shark instinctively reacting to blood, going into a biased
> > > > > frenzy.
> > > >
> > > > Science isn't about fair. There's no equal time for bad ideas. The
> > > > Constitution isn't about equal time, either. Maybe you think it's not
> > > > "fair" that religion and science don't get treated the same in public
> > > > schools. Too bad.
> > >
> > > That is where CQ comes in.
> >
> > Fine. CQs may be answered in science class. Who says otherwise?
> > If you don't like publishers refusing to waste space in their text books
> > with ID, then publish your own text book.
>
> Teaching is not wasting time. If a bunch of students are thinking of
> ID-like issues when the evo chapture comes up, then it is NOT
> a waste.

If it comes up, the teach may deal with it. You seem to think uttering
the sounds of "Aye Dee" is illegal. It's not.

> > > > > > > The whole
> > > > > > > suppoter motivation thing is illogical. An idea does not become more or
> > > > > > > less scientific because of what supporters do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Try to pay attention. This is important. Supporter motivation has nothing
> > > > > > to do with the law. It's legislator motivation. One of the rules for disallowing
> > > > > > religious laws (or policies) is purpose. A law may not have a religious purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds like motivation to me. Ideas don't sing and dance and don't wear
> > > > > bluejeans. ID as printed on paper has no brain and no conscience.
> > > >
> > > > If you think that laws don't have force and purpose, try violating one.
> > >
> > > Crime is a different animal. Science books are about ideas, not human
> > > motivations.
> >
> > I'm not talking just criminal law. Educational policies have force and purpose,
> > as well.
>
>
> Well, my suggestion has the purpose of CQ.

Again. No one is disallowing a teacher from answering a CQ. Why do
you keep bringing this up?.

<snip>

> > > > > It is basing the decision on what people think, not on the words in the
> > > > > textbook.
> > > >
> > > > The decisions are based on what the laws or policies do and say when
> > > > those laws and policies are carried out. When there is a dispute about
> > > > what is said, the Supreme Court has ruled that plaintiffs may present evidence
> > > > about the purpose of the laws and policies from the law makers' own words and
> > > > actions. Why do you think this is unfair?
> > >
> > > If it was a case of vague words, then they should require they be
> > > clarified rather than use motivation to interpret them. In this case we
> > > can do that.
> >
> > That's not the way the system works. The courts adjudicate disputes
> > based on the laws as given. They cannot require legislatures to make
> > clearer laws.
>
> Then it will just result in trying and trying again.

It's comments like this that has made other posters call you names.
This is the price we pay for separation of powers. It may be
inefficient, but it helps keep us free. Were you asleep in civics
class?

> > > > > Maybe that is what the courts do out of habit, but I still
> > > > > think that is the wrong approach.
> > > >
> > > > The courts do this out of the law. Courts must determine mental states
> > > > all the time. Are you unaware of this?
> > >
> > > I didn't dipsute it, only question the practice.
> >
> > I don't know how you'd distinguish assault from assault with intent to kill
> > if you don't allow the courts to determine mental states.
>
>
> Like I said before, crime is a different animal.

It's comments like this ....
On both sides of the law, civil and criminal, there are rules for determining
states of mind, when such are important to the issues being adjudicated.

<snip>

> > > > > > Your version of ID is really not very different from Behe's, and the reason
> > > > > > that Behe's can't be mentioned is well stated in Judge Jones' decision. Why
> > > > > > don't you read it and then tell us what bothers you?
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. I propose criticising ID for being hard to test.
> > > >
> > > > How about astrology? Is that hard to test?
> > >
> > > I think it has already been tested and failed.
> >
> > So has ID. For hundreds of years.
>
> When did it fail?

When it failed to produce any evidence for it or any lines of inquiry
that can be pursued from it. Feel free to show I'm wrong.

> > > > > 2. My approach is based on CQ, not on alleged weaknesses of evo.
> > > >
> > > > How about astrology? Don't most people believe in horoscopes?
> > >
> > > I have never heard it mentioned in my science class (outside of jokes).
> > > You are trying a slippery slope claim again. Address say the top X
> > > questions. That way every speculation does not end up being there since
> > > there can only X top X's. If you think it is "wasteful", at least we
> > > have put a threashold on it.
> >
> > Again. No one is proposing stopping questions from the class.
>
> You appear to be because you don't like CQ.

I don't mind CQ, and I don't oppose teachers answering any germane
questions that come up in class, including ID.

>
> >
> > > > > 3. I propose DNA pattern analysis as a potential test. Thus, it is
> > > > > testable. (Maybe not a great test, but that is not what is needed to
> > > > > qualify under CQ.)
> > > >
> > > > I can't figure out whether ID is testable until I hear specifics about
> > > > "DNA pattern analysis." Maybe you're right. But as far as I can
> > > > tell, you are unconstrained in your encoding and your interpretation.
> > > > That means you don't have a scientific test.
> > >
> > > Again, SETI faces a very similar problem. They have no up-front
> > > sure-shot way to say a signal is "intelligent".
> >
> > But that's not what they're doing. They're not looking for "intelligent"
> > signals. They're looking for signals with a particular electromagnetic
> > signature. Haven't you figured this out yet?
>
> Only to narrow down the candidates. And if there is no way to determine
> "intelligence" once they get a candidate signal, then does that mean
> they are not doing science? You can't have it both ways.

Well, we won't know until they get a signal. Their search for such a
signal is scientific. What about what they do with a signal once they
get it? We'll have to wait and see.

>
> >
> > > They would simply study
> > > it using human intuitation and creativity. Do you classify SETI as
> > > "science"?
>
> As usual, no answer.

I have answered this any number of times. SETI is looking for particular
signals. The search for them is scientific because they have set criteria for
looking and they'll know one when they find one. That's all they're doing
right now. When they get a signal and start to analyze it, we'll have to judge
if their analysis is scientific or not.

Deadrat

> -T-
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >>> claim signals are intelligent. ... > considered "science", then why couldn't DNA pattern sifting also be ... It's not the litmus test for everything, just your DNA pattern matching. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >>> books, which would just dismiss it for the pseudoscientific nonsense ... They never claimed they had a *final* test for intelligent signals, ... >>> Science isn't about fair. ... >>> If you think that laws don't have force and purpose, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Alex Mak
    ... Providing it isn't in the science section, I don't suppose it can cause too ... Or possibly schools are places of learning, and crap history and books ... better places for this than the public school room. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why so much opposition to ID
    ... > Not all science is immediately accepted either, but if we burn the ... > books we will never know. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Culture Wars Go to High School
    ... >>you can find books by authors who are working scientists who can write, ... >>read about science but not actually done any. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)