Re: Your tests are untestable


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156309352.089487.277420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156135361.114114.288540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156122130.581102.114850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155975488.744442.88880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155881905.579928.291930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

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. We are just testing for the existence of
fiddling and don't yet have the info for answers to such questions
anymore than SETI knows who ET is what what ET does and why ET
broadcasts messages and if ET is still alive or using beacons.


Valid theories of the origin and evolution of life indicate Earth is
probably not unique. It becomes of question of the most reasonable way
to
verify this possibility.


For the sake of argument, are runners-up's summarily disqualified as
being valid hypoths?
<snip>


Your general assertion is falsified by the available evidence.

Not. But you didn't answer the question. By your "most reasonable"
comment, you suggest/imply a rule. Because I haven't learned how to
read minds yet, I proposed a clarification of your implication to see
if it passes your (allegedly) descrete test.


I mentioned a chaotic border, not a discrete test. Do you understand what is
meant by chaotic? Do you understand what is meant by "reasonable"? Is this a
valid word in your lexicon?


But you won't comment on
it, so I am still left trying to figure out your evaluation heuristics
based on your indirect innuendoes.

This is why I cannot work with you. You refuse to let me probe your
heuristics by comparing and contrasting with feedback. I don't know
what your internal system is for making a descrete decision on
"is/is-not a hypoth".


Reason. Parsimony. Plausible. These are concepts often used in science. I'm
sorry if they elude you. Did you make a specific hypothesis? I thought you
bounced between untestable generalities and falsified specifics. After all
this time, I still don't know what your hypothesis is, or why you believe it
to be true.

A hypothesis is an tentative assertion. A hypothesis must be specific. A
hypothesis must be reasonably consistent with the available evidence. A
hypothesis must lead to specific predictions of new empirical observations
that can either validate or falsify the assertion.

A hypothesis is one step in the scientific method. First, observe some
aspect of the world. Then form a generalization about the world from these
observations. Use this generalization to predict some new observation.
Honestly apply the results of these new observations to accept, modify or
abandon the generalization. Publish your results so that others can
replicate your observations and extend your findings. Repeat the process.
You will notice that the natural world has certain consistencies.
Eventually, you will find that your efforts converge onto an understanding
of the natural world.

Your assertion is not a tentative assertion, because there is no argument or
evidence that will cause you to abandon it.
Your assertion is not reasonably consistent with the available evidence, but
requires ignoring what is known.
When general, your assertion is not testable; when specific, it falsified by
the available evidence.
Your assertion does not follow from what is already known. There is no
reason to accept your assertion, even tentatively.
Your assertion is known as speculation. You are more than welcome to
speculate. But please don't keep insisting it is a valid scientific
hypothesis.

You may want to consider the purpose and nature of science. We touched on
this previously. Why do omniscient beings not use science?


The definitions you claim it is based on have too
many wiggle words to be useful, at least to me. If those wiggle words
contain algorithmic precision, I don't see it. I just see laymen
"street words", generally not meant for clinical use.

They are no more clear than the emails that the sales department sends
to me when they want a custom query/extraction in order to print
targeted spam. My collegues are frustrated by such emails also, so I am
not the only one bothered by Vaguespeak. If I am busted in the head, so
are they.

Maybe it *is* all a fault with me and I am f8cked in the head and don't
see the obvious. Either way, we have reached an impass. Either you are
way beyond me mentally such that we cannot communicate, or you are like
the touchy-feely marketing deparment who think in emotions instead of
logic and are happy with their doodles.


You have
consistently ignored every argument made.

No, I evaluated them, and found them weak.


I honestly don't think you convinced anyone other than yourself.



You have manipulated the
definitions of words.

The fault is within you for using vague definitions. I pointed out the
"wiggle words" that most rational people would agree leave too much
room for personal interpretation. If I "manipulate" definitions, it is
merely a form of testing to figure out how YOU are interpreting them.
That is the ONLY way I know to probe your interpretation of the defs.
If you mistake it for sinister plans, I don't know what to say.

If aliens manipulated the human genome in 1947, no
wonder you weren't interested in E. coli.

Is this supposed to mean something?

But why do you maintain this
pretense? If you have evidence that aliens have tampered with the human
genome in recent decades, please present it. Otherwise, please desist.

Again again again, I am ONLY dealing with "testable" here. I am not
dealing with "tested" at this point. If that bothers you, then please
leave.


And you continue to ignore the definition of "test". Now, I understand that
dictionaries do not provide the best source of definitions for technical
words. But still. You ignore the definition provided, and offer nothing in
return, but continue to repeat the syllables as if it has some meaning.



The claim addressed here was that ID is "untestable". I found a form
that is by barrowing ideas from SETI.


The general assertion is untestable. When made specific, it is falsified by
the available evidence. I'm not sure why you are having difficulty with this
concept. The validity of the statement requires an examination of the
specific claims and the relevant evidence. For instance,

Z: This is my scientific hypothesis: There are Martian cities on the Moon.
T: No, there are not. And that's not a valid scientific hypothesis.
Z: How do you know there's no Martian cities on the Moon?
T: People have looked at the Moon and not seen Martian cities.
Z: They weren't looking.
T: Well, a city would stick out like a sore-thumb.
Z: Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe they just put the anomalies in a box somewhere.
They're not paid to look for Martian cities.
T: That's ridiculous. Someone would have noticed.
Z: Show me where an astronomer who was paid to look for Martian cities on
the Moon.

T: Your getting more and more ridiculous. There is no evidence for Martian
cities on the Moon. Scientists have spent hours examining images of the
Moon. There is no evidence that there even are Martians, much less that they
traversed interplanetary space to build colonies on the Moon.
Z: Then it shouldn't be hard to find a scientific research program that
looked for Martian cities on the Moon.
T: Here's something. A speculative study of interstellar civilization...
Z: Mars is not interstellar.

T: Well, do you have any specific evidence for these Martian cities, or even
Martians?
Z: The question is not evidence, but whether it is testable.
T: Well, here's a photo of the Moon. I don't see any cities.
Z: They might be painted gray. Lunar gray.
T: If they look just like the Moon, then the assertion may not be testable.
Z: Sure it is. Just pay a bunch of people to hit golf balls all over the
Moon. They might bounce off the deflector shields.
T: Now that's completely ridiculous.
Z: It's just an economic issue.
T: Whatever it is, it doesn't constitute a valid scientific hypothesis.
Z: Sure, it's just like SETI.
T: Only more ridiculous.

--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/







--
Zachriel

-T-



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zack admits testable (DNA-ID vs. SETI)
    ... When vague, your assertion is untestable; ... the reason they haven't found Martian cities on the Moon is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Its Gumby Damnit!
    ... I accept many many facets of the natural evolution "database". ... All the evidence suggests that it is, especially as we can trace the ... Only after the fall would extinctions take place. ... ....which is simply empty assertion unsullied by any taint of evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... which makes evolution possible. ... a provision for variations within limits during reproduction. ... Before looking at evidence supporting this theory, ... The rest is empty assertion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Apollos Laser Reflecting Corner Cubes
    ... Note to Guth: ... Our moon is both, sufficiently radioactive and otherwise rather nicely ... pool of evidence. ... You talk about hard science, ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... a provision for variations within limits during reproduction. ... It would falsify evolutionary theory. ... The rest is empty assertion. ... I presented evidence of variability within limists in my original ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading