View Poll Results: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 4.35%
  • no

    66 95.65%
Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 206

Thread: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Gravity is scientific fact....
    gravity is not fully understood.

    Newton believed that it was merely a force between all things with mass, but Einstein showed us that it is really a bend in space-time caused by all things with mass.

  2. #102
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Well actually it does, because you're measuring the wrong thing. Rather than ask the question "What is the probability that life forms in our universe?" the real question is "What is the probability that life forms in a universe in which I'm around to pose this question?" And of course for the latter question, the probability is 1.
    Of course... physicists and mathematicians everywhere are all wrong. Uh huh.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    gravity is not fully understood.

    Newton believed that it was merely a force between all things with mass, but Einstein showed us that it is really a bend in space-time caused by all things with mass.
    That's my point, thank you. If something as basic and observable as gravity is not fully understood, nothing is.

  4. #104
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Of course... physicists and mathematicians everywhere are all wrong. Uh huh.
    Umm it's called the Anthropic Principle, and it's pretty much a universal rule of thumb used by physicists...

    In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.
    Are you suggesting that the probability that life forms in a universe in which you're around to observe it is something LESS than 1?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 04-27-12 at 09:20 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #105
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Umm it's called the Anthropic Principle, and it's pretty much a universal rule of thumb used by physicists...
    I'll re-post it since you apparently missed it.

    Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

    Rule of thumb? Physicists now use a "rule of thumb"... good to know. Let me add... I'm not interested at all.. in the Anthropic Principle rule of thumb. I'm much more interested in the math... but I certainly can understand why you wouldn't want to discuss the math and would want to change the subject to something else.
    Last edited by Ockham; 04-27-12 at 09:21 PM.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #106
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,872

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah
    I am forced to agree here...science does not have an end game, and is instead a never ending quest for answers. To state the process goes backward, is to make it clear you misunderstand the work.
    This seems tantamount to admitting that science is wholly false...which doesn't seem like a claim that someone would want to make. If there is no end game, there is no truth that science can discern (unless you mean something different than I understand by "end game")--there must at best be quasi-proximate models. And the problem with that line, of course, is that those models might be close to the truth, or they might simply work according to social acceptable norms, essentially fooling us into thinking them "close enough."

    I'm aware that some people take this line. I just find it a little perplexing. It seems that someone who really thought this would be quite intellectually humble (David Hume on his deathbed comes to mind). But rather often, I find proponents of such theories speaking as if they're certain of something that isn't a merely logical truth.

  7. #107
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    I didn't read that entire 50+ page document nor do I plan to do so, but from the bits that I read (including the conclusion), it would appear that the author does not agree with you that life was impossible to form by chance anyway. From your source:

    Conclusion
    There is still the same, single, fundamental problem with all these statistical calculations, one that I mention in my review of Foster: no one knows what the first life was. People like Morowitz can try to calculate what is, at a minimum, possible, and laboratory experiments, like that which discovered the powers of tetrahymena (see Addenda C), can approach a guess, but these guesses still do not count as knowledge, and it is not sound to claim that simply because we don't know what it was, therefore we can't assume there was such a simple life form. And even if we accept such an argument, to go from there to "god" is essentially a god-of-the-gaps argument.
    Rule of thumb? Physicists now use a "rule of thumb"... good to know.
    It sounds like you have some irrational hostility toward science, so I suspect that merely pointing out the errors in your argument will do nothing to change your mind.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #108
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,872

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Relativity is two theories, not one. That would be factual error number 1.
    I suppose depending on how you dice it, it could be several theories. But I would agree that special relativity was the result of the 1905 paper, general relativity the result of the 1916 paper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    You refer to 1905, so one would assume you are referring to "special relativity". The Paper On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies was not a theory, but a pair of postulates and then a look at what would result from them. The postulates where based on the current observations of the time. Therefore it was science. They where testable, therefore they where science. So your first point fails a miserable death.
    Really? It doesn't seem so to me. My interlocutor wasn't saying anything about testability; he was talking about testing (i.e. practice, not conceptual) and basing propositions on observations. My point was twofold:

    1) Plenty of science originates from untested propositions.

    2) Other disciplines do testing and revision all the time; if that's what's supposed to distinguish science, it doesn't do a very good job.

    Anyway, before we continue, you seem to have the idea that I'm somehow anti-science. This is not correct. I have a great deal of respect for science. I am very critical of certain interpretations of science, however, and I believe I have good reason to be.

    With that out of the way, let's discuss this

    The Paper On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies was not a theory, but a pair of postulates and then a look at what would result from them. The postulates where based on the current observations of the time.
    a little more carefully.

    First, I'm not sure I understand why you'd say special relativity isn't a theory (at least here, though you seem to say that it is elsewhere). But that aside, those two postulates were not determined by the available observations. By that, I just mean that the available observations didn't make the postulates inevitable (indeed, how could they?). Before the experiments that are taken to confirm relativity occurred, it was just as likely (and was in fact proposed) that the MM aparatus was faulty. Or that the properties of the aethyr were not sufficiently understood. Or even that the data was falsified, or etc.

    Einstein revived Galileo's proposition of relative inertial frames, and mixed in the notion that light in a vaccuum has an absolute velocity. From there, as you note, he deduced what might be observed. But just what role can deduction, which is entirely independent of observation, play in science? If it is to play a role, it seems perforce that philosophy plays a role in science. Since my initial point was simply that science is much more difficult to distinguish from other areas than most people believe, this is a relevant point.

    Further, if all it takes for something to be science is to be "based on" observations, then of course special relativity was science. But then, so is a lot of stuff that I bet you wouldn't want to see counted as science. For instance, was Locke's philosophy of mind, "based on" the notion of the mind as Tabula Rasa at birth which was in turn "based on" the best available observations science? I suspect you'd probably think not. But how is that case distinguishable from relativity in principle? If you're going to try to define science, you'll have to do better than this.

    Quote Originally Posted by redress
    You repeat the same error in your second point. Theories do not leap out full cloth, there is a process to become a theory.
    Where did I say otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Just because something is not yet a theory does not mean it is not part of science. If you make one or more hypothesis based on observation that can be tested and falsified, that is what we call the scientific method. That is, it is science.
    Again, this seems either to be false, or to include too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    Your whole post reads of stealing from an anti-science site designed to confuse those who have no clue about science. It is flat out nonsense.
    Well, I came up with all of it, and didn't visit any websites to find it. I did spend about ten years in undergraduate and graduate courses at reputable and accredited universities in the U.S., several of which were devoted to the practice, history, and philosophy of science, from which I managed to distill most of my views. In any case, I made no similar remarks to my interlocutors; your words here are rather insulting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    You completely fail to understand the scientific process. A hypothesis is built from observation.
    What does that even mean? How do you build something from observation? It seems rather that we build hypotheses from symbols which encode interpretations of observations. Which goes to my point about Quine-Duhem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress
    That is inaccurate due to your failed understanding of the scientific process. In fact, rather than going back and tearing each section of your post apart by repeating the same thing
    This approach hardly seems fruitful. I might just as easily lambast your entire post, and we could just exchange that way. But what would be exchanged? Certainly not ideas, and it'd hardly be a debate. So I can hardly credit this tactic. And I don't think the moon landing was faked.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    That's my point, thank you. If something as basic and observable as gravity is not fully understood, nothing is.
    that's a very stupid thing to say.

    because we don't fully understand gravity, that means we have no understanding of anything whatsoever?

    that's a very convenient theory for you, as it allows you to disregard any science you don't like.

  10. #110
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I didn't read that entire 50+ page document nor do I plan to do so, but from the bits that I read (including the conclusion), it would appear that the author does not agree with you that life was impossible to form by chance anyway. From your source:
    So you skip to the summary without understanding the context, and make the wrong judgement. Serves me right for trying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It sounds like you have some irrational hostility toward science, so I suspect that merely pointing out the errors in your argument will do nothing to change your mind.
    Oh is this the accusation portion of the discussion already? It sounds to me like you don't want to discuss the math.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •