Re: Your tests are untestable

topmind wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
As life on Earth is related by common descent, that wouldn't be necessary.
If life on Earth was seeded by aliens, then all life would presumably have
the embedded message.

I am not claiming they necessarily seeded from scratch.

You're not claiming anything specific enough to test or supported by
any available empirical evidence. That's why your speculations don't
constitute the practice of science.

If aliens manipulated the human genome via a big black
monolith, then all extant humans would presumably have the embedded message.
Of course, it is very difficult to know for sure, as your claims are
extremely vague.


If you mean that we don't know who fiddled, what they fiddled with, or
when, you are correct.

More importantly, the Bryce Jacobs DNA-ID non-hypothesis that "Some
being or beings may have manipulated some genome or genomes on Earth at
some point in time in the recent or deep past and may have left some
unknown pattern encoded in some unknown fashion using some unknown
technique for some unknown purpose. Maybe." is based on no logically
supportable assumptions regarding those questions nor does it make
falsifiable predictions concerning them. It is therefore not
scientific.

We are just testing for the existence of fiddling

No, you're doing your damnedest to avoid providing sufficient,
scientifically supportable detail to allow any form of testing.

In short SETI is also extremely vauge.

"There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength
being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars." (Thanks to
Zachriel.)

That is sufficiently precise to run a distributed algorithm against.

It is based on equally specific, supported assumptions:
"The hypothetical assumptions that underly the radio search for SETI
are that technological socities will use radio to communicate, as we
do. That they will be able to generate signals of comparable or
greater power than we can. That they will be scanning the heavens with
radio telescopes, as we do. That they will notice that there is a
region of the microwave spectrum which is lower in noise. That
contained within this band is the emission line for hydrogen, the most
common and lightweight element. That at a higher frequency is the
strongest emission line for the OH. That the signals they are likely
to use will be simple narrow band carriers, because they are easier to
detect. That these carriers will likely be Doppler shifted, since they
will originate from planetary bodies rather than stars.

These are a lot of assumptions, but the empirical consequence of
assuming these are that we should be able to test to see if these
assumptions hold: we can scan the heavens on a wide variety of
frequencies, looking for narrowband carriers within the target
frequencies." (Thanks to Mark VandeWettering.)

Why do they get to be vague but DNA-SETI does not?

Compare the Bryce Jacobs DNA-ID non-hypothesis to the scientific
hypothesis and supporting assumptions above. Your speculations don't
even come close to the level of specificity required of a scientific
hypothesis.

You never give consistent answers to address these
double-standards.

Liar. The scientific method has been explained to you repeatedly.
Links to further information have also been posted. Anyone with even a
limited high school science education would know the terms to look for
on the web.

You either cannot or will not understand. That is a problem with you,
not with the scientific method.

You guys DON'T explain.

Zachriel and Mark VandeWettering, in particular, have provided cogent,
clear expositions of science and the scientific method sufficient to
allow even a grade school child of moderate intelligence to understand
those topics. No fault lies with them -- you cannot or will not
understand.

If so, then I just don't think you can possibly convince anyone of anything.

Other debaters who either agreed it was continuous, felt that SETI did
no qualify, or that SETI is merely exploration instead of a hypothesis
don't seem to have huge disagreements with me.

Ah yes, your hoards of supporters. Where did they go, again?

It has been repeatedly explained to you that, while the line between
science and non-science can be slightly fuzzy due to the inherent
limitations of human language, there are concepts that are clearly
scientific and others that are clearly not. Real scientists work hard
to ensure that their proposed hypotheses do not fall into the fuzzy
area, a task that is not normally particularly difficult. Your
speculations are so vague that they can only dream of one day being
close enough to the line to meet someone who knows someone who once saw
it.

State your hypothesis clearly. Make your assumptions explicit.
Provide logical and scientific support for those assumptions. Show
specific predictions that derive directly from your hypothesis.
Explain how failure of those predictions would falsify your hypothesis.
When you've done that, you can stop whining about where the line
between science and non-science lies.

BJ

----
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dfa00a58f25f28ac:
Bryce Jacobs (topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
| First make a list of the first 500 prime numbers:
| A: 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 29 .....

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: real theories vs imaginary tales such as natural selection
    ... If science was precise, somebody would have documented it by now. ... and the failure of one or more of those predictions must ... Professional scientists debate over whether SETI is ... "The hypothetical assumptions that underly the radio search for SETI ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evoultion headed for the burn pile of history? Lets see..
    ... No supporting data. ... "another 100 scientists" think it needed top be stated? ... Darwinian evolution. ... associate director of the Center for Science & Culture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another climate alarmist found lying--by the Obama administrationno less
    ... argument to doubt every other bit of evidence supporting global warming ... listened to anymore by other scientists. ... Care to name a specific science field and event and name or ... They don't think vaguely, or conflate things ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Alien Genetic Manipulation of Man
    ... the available supporting evidence (including lack of refuting ... absolute lack of supporting evidence. ... other scientists simply by offering personal anecdotes of emotional ... One thing on which we all agree - the truth never comes from you. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What *is* design?
    ... since ID is not accepted by scientists your assertion is incorrect. ... >> when johnson says the supernatural has to be admitted into science ... if in fact ID is not religion? ... as i said there are none supporting it. ...
    (talk.origins)