Perhaps, a better question might be:
"Is Intelligent Design blasphemy?"
For all we know, God thinks this particular universe was an intellectual blunder of astronomical proportions and has since introduced eight progressively upgraded universes of which we have no knowledge or experience.
It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
2 people actually said yes...
Is witchcraft chemistry?
IMHO...What a frightening thing to believe...that all answers related to every question regarding the existence of the universe and all things in it actually boils down to one solitary answer: "god willed it to be".
If the human mind should be cognitively stuck with the notion that all questions and answers regarding everything we know empirically is: "god". Then why even wake up in the morning?
I can't even connect the words "Intelligent Design" with the word "Theory". IN MY OPINION...they don't compute....they aren't related...they don't deserve to be in the same sentence.
Intelligent Design is a term that shouldn't exist. It doesn't compute.
Last edited by Removable Mind; 04-29-12 at 11:56 AM.
But, now that you have moved you goalposts, I will kick again:
Concepts that simply are;
None are simple, but they simply are.
And again, I don't think so. Tell me, just what is the scientific method to which you refer? Here's my bet: you tell me, at a reasonable level of detail, what the scientific method is, and it will not actually match the methods used to formulate at least a couple accepted pieces of science. Relativity is one of the most usual examples of this, since Einstein expressly did not follow the usual observation->hypothesis->experiment->revision/proposal model usually put forward by those who haven't studied the history of science.Originally Posted by Redress
Once you actually look at what the best scientists throughout history (and I won't even bother with the Greeks or the Medieval Islamic scientists; there are plenty of examples from Renaissance Europe forward) actually do, you come to realize there isn't really a describable scientific method, per se. There are just, perhaps, a set of guidelines. And that's it.
Yet again with Popper...as I wrote earlier in this thread, W.V.O. Quine and Pierre Duhem laid this to rest, and it's time people realized it generally. There are far fewer supporters of full-on falsificationism among working scientists or philosophers of science than usually appear on boards such as these. There's a reason for that...well, actually three reasons that I think might have a chance of being understood here (for those who haven't studied the theory-ladeness of observation at a graduate level):Originally Posted by Redress
1) Few working scientists actually follow Poppers proposed methods. That is to say, most scientists are verificationists. If some theory T predicts some set of observational consequences O, where other theories U and V predict some modified version of O, O' or O'', where actual observations match O, at some point theory T is treated as confirmed, not merely unfalsified. In other words, theory T is treated as roughly true, while U and V are treated as false.
2) There's a good reason for 1): full-on falsificationism severely limits what one can and cannot say, to the extent that strict falsificationism leaves us with practically nothing interesting to say about the world. Look: let's consider the theory that the earth is round. According to falsificationism, it's certainly a falsifiable theory. But it can never be confirmed. The best we can say is that no evidence has ever falsified the theory. But perhaps the world is enniakosianekatomeriododecohedral (a roughly round shape with 10.8 billion facets). Just what evidence is there that falsifies that? What evidence that falsified that, might falsify the notion that the earth was hekiakosianekatomeriododecohedral (a roughly round shape with 9.6 billion facets)? It seems, rather than falsifying all the infinite number of possibilities in between "one-sided" (i.e. flat) and round (i.e. no sides), we'd just rather say "the earth is round."
3) Most importantly, what we consider to be actually falsified depends on which assumptions we make. The classic example given (by both Quine and Popper) is the discovery of Pluto. It began with an observation that the orbit of Uranus (not Neptune, as oft reported) was perturbed by some mass other than that of Neptune. Two hypotheses were competing for which was correct: first, that there was another nearby mass. Second, that Newtonian mechanics was wrong. People assumed (wrongly, it turns out) that Newtonian mechanics was correct, and therefore began searching for a mass. Now, there is such a mass, and we know what that mass is. But it wasn't clear, prior to the confirmation of the existence of Pluto, which hypothesis was really correct. It ought to be clear, that if no mass had been discovered, the question would be left dangling. The hypothesis that comprises Newtonian mechanics (which might have been correct) wouldn't be falsifiable.
This must assume you already know what counts as natural and what counts as unnatural. If this had been the method followed to discover the distinction, it obviously wouldn't work. So if this is part of science, it's either philosophy, or it's false.Originally Posted by Redress
OK, that's a little more clear.Originally Posted by Redress
This just leaves the problem under discussion wide open. That you don't see that is quite strange to me. The question is what separatesOriginally Posted by Redress
This was not recognized at the time.Originally Posted by Redress
I agree that SR was accepted because it explained observation. That hardly rebutts my point.Originally Posted by Redress
There's no fault in my understanding.Originally Posted by Redress
'Tis a pity you aren't familiar with Locke; you've been arguing his position (more or less) throughout this thread.Originally Posted by Redress
Anyway, his notion of the Tabula Rasa was not considered testable at the time, though we now know that it would have easily testable. The tests that caused us to think it false came two centuries later, but they would have been easily done in the 18th century, when the idea was articulated. The testability of this hypothesis (as with practically all hypotheses) depends on what we assume true.
I don't recall arguing this.Originally Posted by Redress
See the bit about Locke...Originally Posted by Redress
Let's see...in the bit you called nonsense, I made three points:Originally Posted by Redress
1) To your apparent accusation that I had copied my points from some anti-science website, I replied that I spent a great deal of time getting an actual education, that I am educated in the topic at hand, and that your words are insulting (as they continue to be, though I have not insulted you).
2) I asked you to clarify what it means for something to be built from observation, and I further pointed out that the interpretation of hypotheses is part and parcel of indeterminism.
3) I pointed out that simply lambasting someone else's posts, or individual points within those posts, without engaging them, is fruitless.
So, why are all these points nonsense?