Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Dec 16, 6:55 pm, hhyaps...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

You are working on the side of "faith" in some sort of Designer.

Given that certain types of phenomena are found that go well beyond
what any known non-deliberate force of nature is capable of achieving,
like a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, you're right.

So, anything found you quickly resort to assumption of ID(consciously
or unconsciously) if you cannot move forward conclusively.

You can never move forward conclusively in science. You can only move
forward in degrees that are never 100% conclusive.

Richard, on the other hand, relies upon 100% evidence and would have
reservation until proven, or find ways to conclude.

Again, anyone who demands 100% evidence isn't doing science. Science
doesn't demand 100% evidence. Science isn't even needed if there is
100% evidence. Science is only useful given limited evidence.

In all scientific
work, there is no supernatural being in mind.

We aren't talking about hypothesizing "supernatural" here - but
deliberate high-level intelligence. Science most certainly is capable
of detecting the activity of high-level intelligence or "artifact".

Its very easy to point any work to deity, even mentioning yourself as
the indirect result of god's creation.

It is quite another thing to show that only an intelligent mind could
produce a particular type of phenomenon - like a highly symmetrical
polished granite cube or a radio signal that carries the first million
digits of pi repeated over and over again.

Your reason will be full of prejudice, since your mind will always
point towards the direction of a deity at work, be it your ID or
someone else deity.

Not true. There are lots of phenomena that are easily explained
without the need to invoke deliberate intelligent activity - such as
an irregularly shaped, rounded or fractal-type granite rock.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ID is dead
    ... redefined it to exclude non-physical phenomena, ... Even if the proposed evidence takes exactly the form ... predicted by some believer in some non-natural agency how does one ... Science can study natural evidence, as you say, but any connection ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AI versus Human Consciousness
    ... > Whether or not you think I am talking about science is entirely irrelevant ... There is significant statistical evidence that certain phenomena, ... simply a statistical anomaly with no explanation. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: On using the Scientific Method on supernatural phenomena -- examplePart1
    ... science of course cannot deal with the ... phenomena have some effect on the observable universe. ... cannot find evidence for things that don't exist", ... _not_ a precondition of the scientific method. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: On using the Scientific Method on supernatural phenomena -- examplePart 1
    ... science of course cannot deal with the ... phenomena have some effect on the observable universe. ... cannot find evidence for things that don't exist", ... _not_ a precondition of the scientific method. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)