Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable

Perhaps you can produce *any* machine which shares *all* your
characteristics?

Not necessary to form a hypoth.

By the way, 1 out of 12 is 8.3%. It seems that your grasp of
mathematics is as weak as your grasp of science.

Please clarify. What is one of 12?

However, I have rather more experience of reading the scientific
literature on the subject and conversing with other scientists on such
matters as well as being engaged in scientific research of my own.

Argument-from-authority does not count in debates. If you are educated
and know how to apply the knowledge, then you know how to articulate
your case and cite references to back your claims. The reader nor the
other side should have to trust you based on an alleged resume.

I've articulated my case very clearly,

Not! You have not made it clear how much and how strong the
similarities need to be to be considered a "hypothesis". You just keep
repeating YOUR summary guess over and over.

Whose opinion in this matter do you think carries more weight?

Well, on the Ego scale.....


It has nothing to do with ego. It is a fact that I know far more about
science and how it works than do you.

Well, perhaps you got an A+ in science, but an F in articulation and
debate.

The similarities are so vague and general that you cannot produce an
example of any machine which shares them all.

A car comes pretty close.


But fails to meet your list of criteria.

By the way, when did you last see a car reproduce by mating with
another car? Seen any baby cars recently? What is the growth rate of a
Ford Fiesta? What are the stages of ontogenetic development of car
tyres, and how is this ontogentic development controlled? Have you ever
seen two male cars fighting over which has access to the receptive
females?

These are all characteristics which dominate the lives and evolution of
living organisms.

So? Fitting all or most characteristics of life is not necessary to
form a hypothesis.

If you focus on the legos vs. tinkertoy aspect, then yes they are quite
different. However, the larger-scale functional features are similar.
Different building blocks but similar final structures.

I see.
So how many living organisms do you know which run on wheels?
Do cars reproduce (and it seems that you have selected cars as the
machines most like living organism)?
Have you ever seen two cars engaged in combat over who has access to
the females of the species? Such behaviour dominates the lives of many
animals.

Again, they don't have to be near 100% similar in order for
similarities to trigger a hypoth.


You can't give a single example of a machine which shares the
characters you list, and can't produce a machine which has any of the
most fundamental characters of living organisms such as reproduction
and growth.

Again, you have not made any clear justification for needing to match
one-for-one on every trait.

You need to come up with a clear-cut and justified (citable) way to
weigh the lists of similarities and differences and justify why the net
weight disqualifies it from being a hypothesis. Otherwise, it is just a
one summary ass-guess against another summary ass-guess.


Actually, that's your job. If you are presenting an hypothesis, it's up
to you to justify its validity,


No. It is only a hypothesis. The heavy testing is a later step. Curious
similarities are plenty sufficient to form a hypoth. If you claim
otherwise, then please cite a source, for I am not going to take your
stubborn biased word alone.


The word is "hypothesis", by the way. Look it up in a dictionary. The
plural (which is what seems to be confusing you) is hypotheses.

This one from m-w.com seems the most appropriate:

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences


The lists of features don't have to match one-to-one to qualify for
"tentative".


You do understand what "tentative" means, do you?

Not firm yet.



And we have human technology cases of this also, such as vacuum tubes
vurses trasistors.

[cases of the underlying, small-scale technology being different, but
serving the same function.]



Vaccum tubes and transistors essentially do the same thing.

You mean like copper wires and nerve fibers?


No, copper wires and nerve fibres do *not* do the same thing. Try
reading about how nerve fibres work, and what they do.


They transmit information from one section of the body/machine to
another. (They may serve other additional purposes, but this is the
primary.)


Copper wires carry electric currents.
Nerve fibres don't.

Their FUNCTION is the same. If you remember, the example was of two
*different* constructions that perform the same task. Just like humans
used one technology the first half of the century (tubes) and another
the second half (transistors); it is not implausible that IDers/aliens
have also switched the underlying technologies to acheive the *same*
function that what we do now.


It's a pretty fundamental difference.

You missed the point of the example. I suggest rereading that one.


Well in that case, what would?

Insufficient similarities.

More handwaving.
So how would you determine that the similarities are "insufficient"?

You claim to know the precise definition of scientific terms, so why
the hell are you asking me? Is it 6.87347628 traits? You are being a
hypocrit here because you won't give precision as to why my list is not
sufficient to form a hypoth and cite references to back your cut-off.
Why am I obligated to precision but not you?

*You* are obliged to produce precise definitions of the terms you are
using, and to produce precise parameters by which you measure
similarites and determine whether or not to include them in your list!

No, because it is only a hypoth at this stage. SETI has no definite
evidence that aliens are broadcasting radio waves. They are testing it
now.


*I'm* not proposing an half-arsed "hypoth". *You* are. It's up to *you*
to justify it, not me!

No, you need to justify that "hypoth" requires super-strong evidence to
be called a hypoth.

Falsification is an either/or condition. It is not incremental.

Then how would SETI be "falsified" using your ever twisting definition
of "falsification"?

Because the hypothesis being tested is that there are *NO*
extraterrestrial intelligences out there sending us signals. We've been
over this before, but evidently you have forgotten.

Then how come it is not called SNETI?

Because it is a "search for extraterrestrial intelligence". The
acronym, which is based on the first letters of the words which are
used to describe the nature of the programme, is SETI.

It searches by testing the hypothesis that there is no such
intelligence.

Because you say so? ID can play this reversal word game also.

The name SETI alone is evidence you are making science rules up as you
go. It is not SNETI.

Your "not" argument is really really dumb. It is a word game
transformation that can be applied to ID-DNA if one wants to make it
stupid to match. Both sides of the equation can be multipled by stupid
so that the equation is still equal.

SETI = DNAID

N * SETI = N * DNAID

STUPID * SETI = STUPID * DNAID

(where * is multiply)


So is your search programme into DNA tightly focussed on the nature of
the "signals" which an understanding of basic physics (or biology for
that matter) would predict as being the most likely to be of artificial
origin?

That is the way in which SETI operates.

If SETI had to rely on content analysis to test a candidate signal,
would it then turn into a non-hypoth???? Why is it nobody ever answers
this?


This is very specific.

Ironic, It is radio-ID.

It is a very specific search based on hypotheses of how alien
intelligences might transmit radio signals.

What hypothesis of how an intelligent designer might place messages in
DNA are you proposing to test?

Images, primes, pi, that "language" algorithm that somebody else
listed, etc.

Ignoring those posts which offer evidence is simple denial.

They are just the same vague or phoney characteristics of "science" or
"testing".

There's nothing vague or phoney about hypothesis testing in science.
It's a rigourous discipline,

Appearently they didn't let you join that segment of the club.


Excuse me?
I'm in the "club" which insists on the rigourous discipline of
hypothesis testing,

What about what qualifies as a hypothesis to begin with? I want rigor
in your hypoth rules. Can you deliver with citations, or are you just
going to blow smoke?

and yields spectacular results.

You willfull ignorance of science is irrelevant. Your loss, as you end
up looking stupid.

You are the one who looks stupid because you cannot show equations and
citations that back your arbitrary barriers to hypothesis forming
despite claiming to know all about scientific rigor. If you can Fuzz
Out or make up arbitrary barriers, then so can I.


Here's a basic text on hypothesis formation:
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/glencoescience/skill_handbook/psp.php?year=1999

quote from that link:

Forming a Hypothesis

Hypotheses A hypothesis is a prediction, based on observation, that
can be tested. Hypotheses are often stated as if-and-then statements. A
hypothesis needs to be testable.

For example, a scientist has observed in Figure 16 that plants that are
fertilized grow taller than plants that are not. A scientist may form a
hypothesis that says: If plants are fertilized, then they will grow
taller. This hypothesis can be tested by an experiment.

(end quote)

How does this make DNA-ID a non-hypoth?


So, having no argument to offer, you resort to puerile invective.

Is that why you have been doing it so much? Mr. Hypocrit.


RF


-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... How do cars communicate with other cars? ... Somebody here agreed it was similarities. ... weigh the lists of similarities and differences and justify why the net ... Then how would SETI be "falsified" using your ever twisting definition ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... start with the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and follow the links from ... science" accusations more seriously. ... it's not just the appearance of rabbits in the old ... Those appear to be papers by the people who support/run SETI, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Physicist James Van Allen Dies at 91
    ... more than sufficient proof as extracted from nearly 10 year old science ... worth of physics that doesn't by itself tend to lie. ... Club/cult SETI is not only barking up those wrong trees, ... there's nearby Venus that's perfectly capable of hosting life ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... If you are arguing from analogy, it needs to be a very good ... mathematics is as weak as your grasp of science. ... The function of nerve fibres is to transmit signals. ... The *hypotheses* SETI are testing are precise and targetted. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: English Sucks (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... OF SCIENCE, not bragging about how smart youses are. ... Some experts also disagree that SETI qualfies as a valid hypoth." ... than extrapolating the existence and behaviors of humans. ... Computers are merely tools and generally make very poor scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)