Re: Double Standard, softy on SETI (was: Definition Challenge)

topmind wrote:
bryce.topmind.jacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
topmind wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
DNA-ID doesn't follow from what is known,

Is this your tired "they would have noticed" argument yet again?

It is a very strong argument to those of us who understand how science
is actually practiced. The fact that you refuse to recognize it as
such says much more about your background than it does about the
strength of the argument.

Typical of vaguoids: argument-by-intimidation

No intimidation, simply a recognition that your statements show that
you have little or no experience of environments in which scientific
research is conducted.

Please explain why you think that a research scientist would ignore
statistical outliers as significant as those related to base-4 prime
numbers. It is simply not a credible assertion.

Because they are looking for biological stuff and don't have time for
followup on outliers.

Just what do you think it is that they are researching? Do you really
think that someone with the requisite training and innate curiosity to
be doing research at that level would simply ignore anomalous data
points? Isaac Asimov put it best: "The most exciting phrase to hear
in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!'
(I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'"

Note that you are still attempting to slip in your assumption that such
outliers exist, without proving it. Show us these outliers that have
been ignored.

("There are no known
sequential prime digits (as defined by encoding algorithm X) longer
than length Y in the DNA of any living entity on Earth.") is
unfalsifiable and makes no testable predictions. It is therefore
impossible for it to add to human knowlege.

Its the same kind of thing as SETI's.

You keep repeating that. You haven't even tried to prove it. It isn't
true.

If you have SPECIFIC RULES for disqualifying

With your usual lack of intellectual integrity you ignored and snipped
the questions I asked that discuss those specific rules:

As repeatedly explained to you, a scientific hypothesis must explain
empirical observations, must be based on empirical evidence and
logical, scientifically supported assumptions, and must make specific,
testable predictions the failure of which would serve to falsify it.

Your cargo cult hypothesis does not meet these criteria. Just off the
top of my head:
- What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis? Note that
analogies are not evidence, particularly when they fail to take into
consideration essential characteristics of one of the entities being
compared.
- On what assumptions does your hypothesis depend?
- What is the scientific and logical basis for each of those
hypothesis? Note that any additional assumptions required must also be
scientifically and logically supported. For example, interstellar
travel is not automatically plausible.
- What is algorithm X? How exactly does it derive from the empirical
observations and grounded assumptions underlying your hypothesis?
- What is length Y? Why Y, exactly, rather than Y-1 or Y*57?
- What predictions derive directly from your hypothesis?
- How can those predictions be tested?
- How would a failure of any of those predictions falsify your
hypothesis?

Unless and until you answer these questions, with enough precision to
allow others to understand your reasoning and reproduce your
experiments, your speculations remain untestable and non-scientific.

Both statements are equally unfalsifiable and both fail to produce
testable predictions.

There is zero link between Pod-Person and Peter Rabbit in your
description.

There is no link between the Bryce Jacobs DNA-ID non-hypothesis of:
"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."
and the "prediction" that there are patterns in the DNA of Earth
organisms.

Produce a scientific hypothesis or admit that you are incapable of
doing so.

BJ

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Double Standard, softy on SETI (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... So the shops have the Bryce Jacobs masks out for Halloween already. ... testable predictions the failure of which would serve to falsify it. ... What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Your tests are untestable
    ... (snipped your bad vague opinions stated a jillion times already.) ... testable predictions the failure of which would serve to falsify it. ... What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis? ... The "My speculations are as good as SETI's!" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt: Re: Double Standard on SETI vs DNA-ID (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... left some unknown pattern encoded in some unknown fashion using some ... being tested by the SETI radiotelescope project has been supplied to ... There are primes encoded in Earth genomes (other than e. ... Before you can make predictions based on your non-hypothesis, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
    ... "There are no known sequential prime digits (as defined by encoding ... predictions the failure of which would serve to falsify it. ... How would a failure of any of those predictions falsify your ... left some unknown pattern encoded in some unknown fashion using some ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Double Standard, softy on SETI (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis? ... What is algorithm X? ... What predictions derive directly from your hypothesis? ...
    (talk.origins)