Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science

Zachriel wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1135998498.762981.21940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1135975654.852955.226270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> >> "Lilith (Deanne Taylor)" <theoriste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1135605429.680623.36040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> > Oop, I meant "Mark Isaak". Sorry about that.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If the Intelligent Designer misspells a word, then does that count as
> >> >> a
> >> >> match? What is there is a message in the genome, "Cre@ted by Jeh0vah".
> >> >> How
> >> >> many words by how many letters can an intelligent designer misspell
> >> >> and
> >> >> still be called intelligent? Could there be a not-so Intelligent
> >> >> Designer?
> >> >> Or perhaps intelligent, but overly reliant on the genomic
> >> >> spell-checker?
> >> >
> >> > A half-wit designer is certainly possible (HWD). Suppose SETI
> >> > intercepted signals from intergalactic teenagers who used slang and
> >> > purposeful and sloppy mispellings. We shouldn't abandon the project
> >> > just because there is slop in the signal.
> >>
> >>
> >> My guess is that they will discovered a false positive and should look
> >> for
> >> terrestrial contamination.
> >
> > Probably. Exploration makes no guarentees about actually finding
> > something.
>
>
> It does require having a methodology to distinguish between wishful thinking
> and actual findings.

No, it does not.

> Let's review the scientific method again: hypothesis,
> prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
> Now, there is a great deal of flexibility within these parameters, and
> different sciences will emphasize one aspect or another of the method. But
> they must adhere to the basic principle of matching theory to observation.
> The hypothesis can come from almost any source, but must be able to be
> reasonably consistent with current data, and, at least in principle, make
> testable predictions of observations that can distinguish the hypothesis
> from current theories. Certainly, a theoretical scientist may spend a great
> deal of time devising his theory before reaching firm conclusions or
> proposing his theory. And certainly, an observational scientist may spend a
> great deal of time pouring over the data looking for commonalities before
> proposing a correlation.
>
> But that's not what you propose. You want to teach speculation to school
> children.


Should the Fed's stop mention of SETI in science books also? (You may
agree that it is not important enough to include in textbooks, but that
is not something the Feds should micromanage.)


>
> And you don't want to bother yourself with finding out what other scientists
> have already accomplished in terms of analyzing the genome. And you don't
> want to bother yourself with understanding the statistical methodology for
> such an analysis. And you don't want to bother yourself with the actual
> process of examing the data, which is easily available to you. And you don't
> want to bother with actually proposing a testable hypothesis. But you do
> bother to pretend, though.


That is irrelavent. I didn't claim I was the manager of such project. I
am just trying to figure out what you label as "science".

>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, you have speculated and speculated. The entire human genome is
> >> quite small by data standards, about 3.2 billion base-pairs. That's 3 GB.
> >> With appropriate compression, it will fit on a single CD-ROM, smaller
> >> than
> >> many computer games.
> >> http://www.nature.ca/genome/03/a/03a_11a_e.cfm
> >>
> >> So, how is your data-exploration coming along? Find any significant
> >> patterns, yet?
> >
> > The "are we there yet?" questions are irrelavent, as described
> > elsewhere.
>
>
> Huh? Have you even looked?

No, and my argument does not depend on me looking. Red herring.

>
>
> >
> >> Do you know how to determine when patterns are *significant*
> >> and how to avoid false positives?
> >
> > No. Does SETI?
>
>
> Yes. A significant find would be a narrow-band radio signal.


That does not rule out a false positive. The question is it considered
"science" even if they have *not* found a signif signal so far? Most
would answer "yes". Thus, a stack of interesting candidates is NOT a
requirement to be considered "science". QED.


>
>
> >
> > One approach is not to make any sure-sounding announcements regardless
> > of the temptation. Just say, "we found something interesting", and
> > leave it at that.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I look forward to your response.
> >
> > I look forward to SETI's response also. I doubt they have one yet.
>
>
> That is incorrect. They have analyzed a large number of signals and put
> limits of various parameters of the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox.
>
> The good news is that the human genome has been sequenced. And you can look
> for whatever patterns you want! How is that coming along, by the way?

I found an image of your face with duct tape over your mouth. That is
proof God or Univbot wants you to shut up.

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • our science replaced by their journalism
    ... to bother anyone with the details. ... this journalism. ... You guys are that what we call scientists. ... looking into the science while you are all ignoring it? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: our science replaced by their journalism
    ... to bother anyone with the details. ... this journalism. ... You guys are that what we call scientists. ... looking into the science while you are all ignoring it? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Scientific Definitions
    ... Most scientists don't bother about the niceties of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Direct3D a rip-off of OpenGL?
    ... bother end users in the slightest? ... In science it often happens that scientists say, ... It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists ...
    (comp.graphics.api.opengl)
  • Re: Is Direct3D a rip-off of OpenGL?
    ... then why would they bother including the "OpenGL ... In science it often happens that scientists say, ... It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists ...
    (comp.graphics.api.opengl)