Re: Definition Challenge
- From: bryce.topmind.jacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 2 Jul 2006 15:38:44 -0700
topmind wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
Show me SETI's, and I shall clone their technique.
"There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength being
emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
We've been over this already. I proposed a Prime Number detection
algorithm, but somebody wanted more details. I explained that I would
provide details only when lack of an existing computerizable algorithm
was the only consensus difference keeping it from being a scientific
hypoth.
It was explained to you, at that time and many others, that a
scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations and make
testable predictions of a level of specificity such that failure of the
predictions would falsify the hypothesis. You have not specified an
hypothesis that would be falsified by failure to find prime numbers in
the genome after an exhaustive search. In fact, you have not specified
an hypothesis that would explain why prime numbers should be expected
in the genome, how they would be encoded, or which genome or genomes
they would be found in.
"Gee, maybe there are patterns in DNA." is not a scientific hypothesis,
regardless of how many baseless algorithms you make up.
BJ
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Definition Challenge
- From: topmind
- Re: Definition Challenge
- From: topmind
- Re: Definition Challenge
- References:
- Re: Definition Challenge
- From: topmind
- Re: Definition Challenge
- From: Zachriel
- Re: Definition Challenge
- From: topmind
- Re: Definition Challenge
- Prev by Date: Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
- Next by Date: Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
- Previous by thread: Re: Definition Challenge
- Next by thread: Re: Definition Challenge
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|