Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable


topmind wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
topmind wrote:

Untill and unless you do, all you are doing is making vague assertions
which you change all the time (yes, I notice that you take out
"commicates with other objects like itself" from your list), and
refusing point-blank to justify your assertion of analogy in any way.

RF


I believe "science" and "testable" to be continuous, NOT descrete.

So what?
You have neither experience of nor knowledge of science or the
scientific process.

Appearently you don't either because you cannot supply the precise
criteria that you claim exists for many of the key issues. If you don't
*want* to supply it, then admit so and go away.


I and others have supplied such information.
If you are determined not to understand it, that's your problem.


YOU
are the ones who imply that it is descrete, yet will not offer any
consensus rules or algorithms for determining what is a legitamate
"hypothesis", etc.

You've been given many links to science sites which define hypothesis
clearly.
If you can't be bothered to read those links, that's your problem.


No, they were NOT clear. They had far too many wiggle words in them.
You simply gave YOUR interpretation of the wiggle words rather than
demonstrate another source of precision and expected me to swallow your
personal opinions without question like a kid at Micheal Jackson's
ranch.


Well, at least you admit that the information you claim above was not
supplied was in fact supplied.

If you are determined not to understand it, that's your problem.




If YOU insist on descreteness of classifications (such as a "hypothesis
level"), then it is your obligation to provide precise algorithms or
rules for making that determination.


Since when have you been in the position of being able to dictate to
scientists what they can and can't do?

I am not dictating behavior. I am only saying that DNA-ID is as
testable as SETI.

SETI is not testable.
Please don't make us explain again the difference between a research
programme and the hyptotheses a research programme tests.





In other words, either you accept the continuous viewpoint, or you
provide the rules for descreteness. It is NOT MY obligation because I
don't believe that descrete categories are well-established nor useful.

The links you have ignored do just that, as have numerous contributions
to this thread,
If you chose to ignore them, that's your problem. Evidently you are
determined to present yourself as an arrogant ignoramus.

They were all too vague to settle anything, turning it back into
personal black-box judgements.

No, they were not vague. They were quite clear, but evidently you have
no wish to understand. Your continued confusion between a programme of
research and the hypotheses that programme tests, which has been
explained to you several time, is indicative of this.


I suppose a third alternative is that it is about "votes", such as the
number of publications in science periodicals. If this is your view
and I get a consensus here on that, then I will live with that "ruler".
(However, I am going to evaluate the likes of SETI with the same ruler,
so make your bed carefully.)

In short, pick a criteria source, show there is a consensus here on
that ruler, and stick with it. I should not be expected to trust your
black-box weighting of evidence. I want to see exactly how your summary
classification is reached. Science should be about open-ness and
details, not bragging and trust.


The only person bragging here is you. You have been offered information
and sources of information in good faith. Several people with a far
better knowledge of science and the scientific process have explained
to you how science works.

I guess I am delusional and have a really busted brain, because it
looks like vague personal opinion to me. I expect more of real science.

Frankly, you have no idea of what "real science" is.

If real science lacked the detail to descretely classify something, the
it would admit to such without worrying about saving face.

If this sentence had any semantic content it would possible to respond
to its content. As it stands it's little more than a jumble of
inappropriate and misunderstood terms.


You chose to ignore this, and insist that
your personal views which are quite evidently ill-informed should take
priority over the informed explanations of scientists.

The only reason I can be bothered to spend any more time on this is
that your behaviour exemplifies the ignorance and arrogance of
creationists, and shows creationism to be nothing but a pack of empty
assertions founded on ignorance.

So please keep posting. The only person you are harming is yourself,
and the only cause you are undermining is creationism.

No, you are by not providing any useful, consistent rulers to judge
truth by. "Science" zealots are no more deserving than religious
zealots. At least the religious zealots have scriptures to compare and
contrast. All I get from you is personal opinion and insults.

You have had very few insults, and have received rather fewer than you
have orginated or deserved.

Pointing out that you know little about science is not an insult, it's
an observation.


You guys would not know precision if you married it and had 10 kids
with it. You think your personal opinions are all that is needed
because you elected yourselves the center of the universe.

As "we guys" have offered you numerous sources which support our views,
you can hardly justify your claim that it's a matter of personal
opinion.


RF



RF

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... all you are doing is making vague assertions ... You've been given many links to science sites which define hypothesis ... personal opinions without question like a kid at Micheal Jackson's ... don't believe that descrete categories are well-established nor useful. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould Evolution big book
    ... Mostly it involves a plethora of vague and ambiguous ... implications of the valuable and useful alternatives are ... Science ain't for sissies. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... all you are doing is making vague assertions ... You've been given many links to science sites which define hypothesis ... don't believe that descrete categories are well-established nor useful. ... better knowledge of science and the scientific process have explained ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BOY SCOUT STORY
    ... Ooh look, Roger the snip-and-sneer Dodger ... the science you snip it and sneer. ... I know nothing about science and that my ... You mean that when you made assertions ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
  • Re: Hersheys criteria of a scientific theory cuts way more than he thinks (PART 1).
    ... Science does not claim to know everything. ... first order claim OF empirical science but an "a priori" metaphysical ... Unfounded assertions are not ... The scientists who are investigating abiogenesis invoke ...
    (talk.origins)