Re: Behe vs. Miller, a True Acid Test

George Evans wrote:
in article 3n9l6bc3z719$.11wez03guuy72$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx, Shane at
remarcsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 6/9/06 5:47 PM:

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:41:18 GMT, George Evans wrote:

<snip>

Pseudo-science from pre-Enlightenment days is exactly what you are
advocating.

Please do feel free to point out where I am advocating this.

These days everything should be fair game.

It is. But to get a place on the scientific table, it has to have scientific
evidence, and be subject to scientific analysis. Funnily enought some things
just don't make the cut.

It looks like you have a log jam. You say, to get on the scientific table,
it has to have scientific evidence. But in order to get scientific evidence
it has to be on the table.

Close, but not entirely. In order to get on the table, it has to have data (not evidence). Specifically, you have to have data that isn't already explained by an existing theory. You walk around doing regular science of some variety, and then you come across a piece of data you can't explain, and go "That's funny. I wonder what causes that?"

Then, you make a falsifiable hypothesis.

Then you test it, and try to falsify it.

ID doesn't have the funny data.
ID hasn't made any falsifiable hypothesis
ID hasn't tested anything.

THAT is why it isn't science. It has nothing to do with circular reasoning.


That's why I said you're advocating
pre-Enlightenment pseudo-science. Some transcendent body is, as the church
did before, deciding what goes on the table before any experimentation is
done.

Nothing is sacred. What makes it science is objective testing and retesting.

Yep, and it does not even have to be objective, as long as the results are
reported honestly. But note the qualification that you put on it, testing and
re-testing. It is not up to science to do this with things that are considered
out of the mainstream.

Take ID for example, there are a bunch of ID proponents running around saying
that science does not take them seriously, and is not testing and re-testing
their ideas. But why should science do so? Science has enough to do, and if
they want their ideas tested let them test them themselves. There is plenty of
opportunity to do so, but no willingness. So who is at fault here? I don't
think it is science for not taking seriously, something that not even its
proponents can be bothered to take seriously.

You are personifying science. Science doesn't have a job, it is a job. ID
proponents and ID opponents are both scientists, and the proponents *will*
do the testing,

No they won't. That's really the problem. ID proponents haven't performed a single experiment, ever. They just don't like the ToE and so they _claim_ to have an alternative. With no evidence. And no experiments. And no way of being disproved. It is altogether dishonest.

but not because science is too busy.

Open any pop science magazine, I read NewScientist fairly regularly, and in
just about every issue, there is someone pushing the boundaries of some aspect
of science to explain something. Most of these explanations are never heard of
again, so there are people doing what you say is not being done, but they are
doing it by testing and re-teasting their own ideas, not sitting round waiting
for someone else to do it for them.

I agree. However sometimes, as in this case, someone else fortuitously does
some work for you.

In the baseball analogy you shouldn't get to the place that something is
judged to be too far out for investigation.

So how many posibilities can you imagine, if you are living the analogy? How
much time do you spend on each one?

If someone is willing to look into it, then he should.

What makes you think this is not happening? What do you apparently think is
stopping anyone looking into just about whatever subject they wish?

You, when you use the designation, pseudo-science. That is meant to herd
everyone into the "mainstream".

No it isn't. It's used to herd everyone back into real science. Not necessarily mainstream science, but real science. There isn't an ID science. There is an ID pseudo-science. I call it that because it's a very quick and easy way of telling people that spending their time on ID is wasting their time. Not because I have emotional attachment to the ToE, but because ID is actually a waste of everybody's time.


It is often those very, very, very occasional ideas that lead to discovery.

Whilst it is true, that very, very, very ocassionally a way out idea leads to
a discovery, in my limited understanding of the scientific process, the
overwhelming amount of progress is achieved one plodding, boring, step at a
time, building upon what has gone before.

OK, I say often and you say not very often. Fair enough.

George Evans



- SRNissen
FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: canRe: Moderatorial Note
    ... > where possible are pretty much the core of it. ... > Evidence, rationality, ... I presume that if one were to omit "quantitative" from that list, one might no longer be talking about science, though even there you seem to regard it desirable but not essential. ... even among scientists, puts some limits on how severe any ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)