Re: real theories vs imaginary tales such as natural selection

On Feb 23, 4:31 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-02-23, topmind <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



wf3h wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:38?pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:52 pm, bryce.topmind.jac...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

The scientific method in a nutshell: ?Observe,
hypothesize, predict, test, repeat. ?Observations must be
replicable. ?Hypotheses must be falsifiable.

Rephrase:

The Ninja Turtle method in a nutshell: ?Observe, hypothesize,
predict, test, repeat, falsifiability.

See the process of human beings providing at the very least a ?well
reasoned description implies falsifiability , predictions and
testing and we can call this human activity anything we want even
"Kowbunga dude" the battle cry of a Ninja defending a turtle.

Let me ask ?you a question: What is your intent,motive,will or
pragmatics in calling this process where whatever you want to do
it must be at the very least well reasoned - science. Who has
defined what is science and where did he define it and what was
this person's premises ? Who says so.

operational definition of science: using a computer to tell
scientists science does not exist.

Here's the one I use: "Science is the endeavor to map reality, and to
find the model(s) that best predict and explain reality."

-T-

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw,
we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on
which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find
that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is
sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They
are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science
by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the
argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the
same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on
evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we
will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important
to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor
has it been the subject of testing and research.

Replied to elsewhere in thread.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwins Appendix
    ... theories are not really falsifiable as Popper proposes. ... Real science is not some logical ... falsifiability and Kuhn's idea of the paradigm ... you detect a person with a significant interest in the philosophy ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Darwins Appendix
    ... theories are not really falsifiable as Popper proposes. ... Real science is not some logical ... My point is that Popparian falsifiability is wrong. ... usually too narrow and of interest to too small a group of scientists ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... replies and claiming I am doing this to avoid good counter evidence? ... criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. ... I challenge the falsifiability criteria. ... I am not complaining about the lack of absolutism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. ... criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. ... I challenge the falsifiability criteria. ... impossible to prove that any phenomena is absolutely true. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tuesdays elections
    ... >>NOT truth but a provisional explanation for nature. ... When new facts surface ... >>should not be included in science classes. ... concept of falsifiability isn't going to get it there either. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)