Re: Your tests are untestable


Zachriel wrote:
"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?

Your logic is chaotic, so I've seen it first hand.

Do you understand what is meant by "reasonable"? Is this a
valid word in your lexicon?

"Reasonable" has turned out to be a very poor word to use in areas
where precision is required or where opinions are polarized. Lawmakers
often use it when they don't want to bother to define laws clearly
enough, and it wastes a lot of jury time because juries end up settling
"reasonable" by vote, NOT by logic.

DNA-ID is a perfectly good hypothesis to me. Sure, it is a long-shot,
but being a long-shot does not by itself make it a non-hypoth. I
already showed you roughly how I would rank it on a continious scale.



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.

Scientists get into heated debates and accuse the other side of being
"unreasonable" all the time. When that happens, objective tools are
preferred. "Reasonable" is a shortcut such that people can move onto
the next step IF they agree on a current step. However, if they don't
agree, then precision and objectively is needed instead. Either that, a
vote settles it. Science has to use votes because resources are
limited. I won't claim that DNA-ID is necessarily the most economic
choice, but economics are not the issue here. "Testable" is the issue,
not "bargain"

(Then again. once the DNA is turned into codons for biology research,
then it is cheap to check the results compared to SETI's antenna's. In
that sense, it may be a bargain: low probability, but low cost to
check.)

I have a book about Trilobites that devotes a chapture to many of the
heated debates on the existence and nature of the "Cambrian Explosion".
You would think it was palistinians vs isrealites.


Did you make a specific hypothesis? I thought you
bounced between untestable generalities and falsified specifics.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

After all
this time, I still don't know what your hypothesis is,

The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intillegence by looking for
intelligent artifacts in DNA. Why is that a stumper to ya? Think of
SETI looking down instead of up. Intelligence and technology can leave
traces in the sky, and it can also leave traces in DNA.

That is perfectly "reasonable" to me, as least as far as testing sci-fi
ideas that don't require things such as time travel, faster-than-light,
or mind-reading.


or why you believe it
to be true.

I didn't say I believe it likely. I am only pointing out it is
*testable*. I made zero claims about high likelyhood.



A hypothesis is an tentative assertion. A hypothesis must be specific.

It is as specific as SETI's. We've been over this already.

A
hypothesis must be reasonably consistent with the available evidence.

I see no conflict. Even accepting your silly undocumented "they would
have noticed", you never claimed that every detectable message would
leave an obviously outlier.

(Snipped other stuff we have been over many times.)

A
hypothesis must lead to specific predictions of new empirical observations
that can either validate or falsify the assertion.

As well as SETI's.


A hypothesis is one step in the scientific method. First, observe some
aspect of the world.

What aspect of the world did SETI observe?

Your assertion is not a tentative assertion, because there is no argument or
evidence that will cause you to abandon it.

What would cause SETI to abandon? I've asked a million times and you
change the subject every single time, or make up a goofy rule out of
the blue without citations backing it, such as your fuzzy "pledged they
would publish the results" rule. ARe you still sticking by that, or do
I need to revisit it to turn yr dead horse into powder?


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

Outside of the topic. DNA-ID does not require supernatural.

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.

It is not *usable* for our purposes because it is too vague. I already
detailed some of the problems and stand by that set of complaints. It
is very difficult to use logic with street terms. I've spent thousand
of hours trying to turn street terms into computer-processable language
as a career, so I know the problems inherant in such first hand. The
people doing the writing often don't realize how vague their writing is
because it's specificity is rarely challenged outside of
computerization. I think you are one of them.

I have to more or less play "20 questions" to narrow it down for them.
But you resist such efforts out of an apparent fear of commiting to
specificity.



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.

It is as testable as SETI's.
It is as testable as SETI's.
It is as testable as SETI's.
It is as testable as SETI's.

When made specific, it is falsified by
the available evidence.

Wrong. You have no documentation only speculation. Your speculation is
worth sh8t to me.

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.

They were paid to report all oddities. In fact, there are transcripts
of astronauts seeing odd things floating in space. The oddities may
have simply been rocket debri that followed their path. But, they COULD
*NOT* FOLLOW UP to check because it would result in aborting the
primary mission.

Thus, we already know what astronauts did with anomolies that are very
comparable to what a moon city would have triggered.

And from this, we know that follow-up was not performed because NASA
put the primary mission first.

Your speculation has thus been tested in the actual world, and flunks
your own argument.

I hate to brag, but it feels good to logically clobber arrogant jerks
with their own weapons. They deserve it and it gives me a sense of
justice. Maybe I am just a delusional Don Quixoty. If so, I don't know
how to snap myself out of it, so will enjoy clobbering an arrogant
stubborn windmill.

(snip)



--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon - photogrammetric rectificat
    ... is capable of carrying out this challenge to do so as soon as possible. ... The amount of evidence that we went to the moon is overwhelming. ... There is no reason why any legitimate scientist or analyst should spend any ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... the most likely conclusion is that no dead human has ... evidence are intellectually dishonest. ... We have no reason to believe it happened. ... Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked. ... Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe. ... entered the guy's head. ... there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: High Rise Living
    ... It was all over science fiction at the time, and I had some of the ... was supposing that there was a close relation between population density ... You haven't offered any evidence that ongoing increase in unsustainable, ... reason to think will. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... I still haven't seen a good reason. ... People in Biblical times supposedly saw God. ... The evidence says the opposite. ... that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Big Bang theory. ...
    (talk.origins)