Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable


[.....too deep to include handles]

We were talking about ID in general, not about SETI. Something that
does not declare what it's testing for is not scientific.

Suggestions were already given: images, pi, primes, that "language"
algorithm, etc.

I was talking about ID in general, not about DNA-ID. I thought you
agreed with me that they're separate concepts and that ID in general
does not predict images in DNA.

I don't think that they are that separate. Finding a strong message in
DNA would certainly boost even Behe's version of ID. I mostly separate
them to avoid mixing up Behe's issues into the more general version
that I am using.

In fact, it does not predict anything
else either. This makes it untestable and not scientific.


If messages in DNA boosts it, then it is testable. Thus, Behe's ID is
still testable. It may not be the test they hope for, but if reality
dissapoints, so be it. We can't judge an idea by who it makes happy.

(Actually, Behe's version is falsifible by busting "irreducable". In
other words, reducing falsifies it.)


As for
DNA-ID, it is still somewhat unclear to me what's the rationale behind
the prediction that there are prime numbers encoded in our DNA is. Is
there one or are they just what-if or why-not possibilities you made
up?

It is one of many messages that a DNA engineer/fiddler might include.
Primes have been proposed by many scientists as a way to get cosmic
attention if we broadcast signals for aliens. It is a "universal
language" if you will. Aliens may not really recognize Mona as
something interesting or intelligent because they are probably not
human and Mona could resemble their own gal bladder to them.

I've missed or forgotten the discussions of language algorithm,
what is it and how do we tell if it's encoded in DNA or not?

I thot I bookmarked it, but can't seem to find it right now. I'll have
to get back to you on that. It was a research paper claiming a way to
find just about *any* language in a digitized sequence.


Well, you complained that Zachriel used wrong specifics but haven't
been willing to say what should have been used instead.

I did give specifics regarding searching the already-presented lists of
studies. I thought it was pretty clear that making your own tests up to
find mona was not allowed. Perhaps it was not clear and I misworded it.
If so, that was unintentional. He went outside of the challenge as
originally stated.

Not allowed?!? So, in fact you don't actually want to have DNA-ID
tested; you just want to make claims about its testability and leave it
at that, because tests could turn out to bring results you don't like?

It was a specific challenge. If somebody wants to introduce something
outside that specific challenge, be my guest as long as it is clear
what you are testing and claiming.

Well, it was perfectly clear to me what Zachriel was claiming: that a
relatively simple and unspecific statistical test could detect a bitmap
inserted into DNA.

For what purpose would he want to demonstrate that?

Well, from what I gather it appears that you asked him to.

Perhaps I did. However, that by itself does not make it relavant to the
key issues here. I may have ran off at the mouth, getting off to a
tangent. Every now and then I do that.


He can work his arse off to prove that frogs are green, but if nobody
cares, he has wasted time.

Haven't we all, haven't we all... :) I'm just a bit at a loss to
understand why you take part in these threads about testability of
messages such as pictures in DNA, if you don't care if pictures are
detectable in DNA or not. How do you suppose we test the idea of
messages in DNA if not by detecting different types of messages in DNA?

I don't run SETI@HOME screensaver either and don't think taxpayers
should foot the bill. That does *not* mean I don't think it is valid
science. If volunteers want to spend time on low-probability research,
that is their perrogative. It is the labelling of such things as
"non-testable" and "non-science" that flips my ire. I welcome
hobbyists to test low-probability hypotheses. It is not any less
productive than watching a ball game or playing pool at the bar.

If you want to argue that it is uneconomical (poor choice of effort
expenditure), I won't challenge that. However, the truth of the
universe does not care what humans do with their time. We are just dust
in the wind (would make a catchy song I think :-)




If you mean they wrote algorithms to detect candidates, I will
perfectly agree that they are further along. But was SETI "not science"
when they first proposed the idea? If not, at what point did it become
science? What is the threashold? Many here behave as if they have these
black-box threasholds in their heads here, but cannot seam to
articulate exactly what they are. It is almost, "I cannot define
science, but I know it when I see it because I am smarter than you".
That is not a usable/analyzable/testable claim. (I am not accusing you
of such, but it is diffucult to get specific threasholds here.)

Haven't we gone over this ground already in these threads? Creative
ideas are a splendid thing but if they are to become science someone
has to formulate them in a specific way that enables them to be tested.
Here's the idea. Here we explore the implications further and try to
make some predictions about things that might also be true if our
understanding is correct. Ok, so now we have a testable hypothesis.
Let's test it. Hmmm, here are the results, let's ponder about them for
a while and get feedback and constructive criticism to see if other
people think it's any good. Well then, now we need to think of further
tests and attempt to do them.

That is like trying to ponder what SETI's aliens are like.

That appears to be a complete non-sequitur. I was just describing the
process of getting from an idea to a scientific hypothesis,
predictions, tests and further tests. I expect that very few people who
have been pondering about what aliens look like have done it anything
like approaching the scientific method.

Both SETI and DNA-ID are based on the assumption that aliens may do
similar things to what we do or are capable of doing. They don't have
much beyond that to really go on. We have no idea what aliens or
intelligent fiddlers would actually do or look like. Human behavior as
a model would imply that we could not predict their behavior. We cannot
assume they are always rational, purposeful, and economical if we
assume they may have traits similar to ours.

For SETI aliens, it may be safest to keep their mouth (antennas) shut.
Who knows what kind of cosmic riff-raff may come along if you broadcast
your presence. Preventing loneliness may get them all killed......or
worse: flooded with inter-galactic spam.



"If God gave us evidence that he did something, we'd have evidence that
he did something" does not constitute a testable hypothesis.

If we're honest about it I think we'd be forced to admit that we
wouldn't even be debating about whether SETI is science or not if SETI
had left it at the level of an idea. "Hey, I got this cool idea that
there might be aliens in the outer space and they might be using
technology, such as radio." However exciting it might be, science it
ain't, and I don't think that you'd easily find anybody who claimed
otherwise.


Okay, but what is the SPECIFIC point in time that it allegedly became
"science", and what is the criteria that made it such at this magic
juncture?

I don't know the history of SETI so I'm unable to point to a specific
point in time. If you're interested, maybe you can go look at their
site and find out when the hypotheses were developed and testable
predictions made.

Make up a hypothetical best-guess one and tell me at each stage whether
it is "scientific" or not and exactly why. I have not been able to
dissect the reasoning processes in your guy's heads as far as what you
call science and don't call science and where the boundary lays.
Everytime you propose something, comparing it to SETI seems to pop it.



DNA-ID resides currently at "Hey, I got this cool idea that
there might have been somebody somewhere who might have done something
that changed something in some DNA." If it's to become scientific we
need more specific hypotheses that may be tested.

So, is there anything more specific? Not that there's anything wrong
with this notion, it may be perfectly true, but it's not testable as
such.

How is SETI more specific? As described above, we know jack sh8t about
aliens. We are only testing the idea that some may be using radio.
Using radio that leaks into space is the ONLY link to testability at
this point for SETI (other than sci-fi-pie-in-sky speculation).


(snip the rest)

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... Because the line between life and non-life is blurred, ... DNA strands. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... DNA would certainly boost even Behe's version of ID. ... creationism" implies a God rather than aliens, ... Primes have been proposed by many scientists as a way to get cosmic ... So, if the topic is testability, actual tests are off topic. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... images, pi, primes, that "language" ... DNA would certainly boost even Behe's version of ID. ... science has to have any explanatory or predictive power either. ... Primes have been proposed by many scientists as a way to get cosmic ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast