Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135735517.215338.311970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Deadrat wrote:
> > "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>

> > And that's their scientific program. The initial identification. They have
> > a clear set of criteria for that. You don't.
>
> Come on, it cannot be the simple with you. So if one sets up a system
> to produce "candidates for further inspection" while reading DNA
> signatures, that would qualify it as "science" in your mind?
>

Depends on what the criteria for candidates are.

> If that's the case, why didn't you say earlier that a "candidate
> producer" was sufficient to be classified as "science"? You made it
> sound like SETI did something "special" to qualify.

Nope. They just have a scientific method to pick candidates.

>
>
> >
> > <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.
>
> See above.

I'm not sure where I'm supposed to look. You have to actually define
your selection criteria.

<snip>

> > 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?
>
>
> That is why I earlier suggested only debunking the most common
> questions; the top X. We only have to hit the biggies, not every Tom,
> *** and Fairy.
>
>

Send your suggestion to the publishers. You'll have to admit you're down
to a pretty weak reason for mentioning ID at all.

<snip>

> > > > 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 said, "the motives for teaching the policy are immaterial." If that
> is the case, then why would one consider my version of ID, along with
> debunking, "religion"?

Because your friends in the ID movement screwed up. The courts aren't
about to consider your particular twist on ID, no matter how secular you
think you've made it. ID is defined by what ID has done.

<snip>

> >
> > 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.
>
>
> I don't see the big difference between that and putting a side blurb in
> a textbook. Why have a fat court case over such?
>

If there's no big difference, then why do you care so much that it's in a blurb.
If ID weren't presented as an alternative to science, then there wouldn't be a
court case over such a blurb. Haven't you read Kitzmiller v Dover yet?

<snip>

> > Again. No one is disallowing a teacher from answering a CQ. Why do
> > you keep bringing this up?.
>
>
> If there is no diff between that and the book doing it, then why are
> YOU raising a fuss?

I'm not. I'm saying that publishers wouldn't want to waste the space in
debunking ID.

> Why are the courts micromanaging textbooks but not teacher speach?

They're not. As long as ID isn't presented as science, then it can be
taught in public schools. Haven't you read Jones' decision yet?

> > > > > > > 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?
>
> Free of side-blurbs that mention and debunk ID? The gov is wondering
> off task.

How do you figure? Plaintiffs felt that the DASB endorsed religion in its
policy; they were right; the court said they were right; Now you can't teach ID
*as science* in Dover. No one says you can't mention it.

> > > > > > > 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.
>
> I think it should only apply to punishment and penalty, not policy
> determination.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But as you appear deeply ignorant about
first amendment law as well as our system of government, why do you think that
your opinion should count for anything?

> > > > > > > > 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.
>
> Then SETI will fail too.

Quite possibly. And then it too will be abandoned as a line of inquiry.

>
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> So they get to be "science" even before they have a chance to screw
> anything up, yet ID must produce clear up-front tests for *final*
> categorization first? Again, the Double Standard is poking its head up.

Where did "*final*" some in? ID must describe its candidate selection
process.

>
> Please make it clear this time whether the existence of a
> candidate-filter is sufficent or not. No weazling.

Are you calling me a weazle?

Seriously, tt depends on the filter. What filter are you using?

Deadrat
>
> -T-
>

.

Loading