Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[IanS]

In this case, I'm not talking about ID, but some other new hypothetical theory. How would one go about showing one's theory better explains the evidence than evolution theory?

If you are an ordinary member of the public, who believes they have actual evidence that conflicts with the basis of Evolution (not just some nit-picking claim about a fringe aspect of evolution that is any case a known matter of academic debate), then your first action should probably be to send your data to the Biology dep't of the nearest big university, and ask the specialists there to look at what you are presenting.

If there is any actual value in what you present, then they will probably arrange for you to meet them at the university and discuss plans for further research, perhaps leading to sending a draft paper to an appropriate research journal.

However, it's hard to imagine how any ordinary member of the public is going to discover something like that before the academics do, especially in a field like evolution where hundreds of thousands of professors and post-doctoral research associates have been conducting research for 100 years or more, and on countless aspects that are almost certainly entirely unknown to members of the general public … so it's a million-to-one-on that the research academics would already have known about any such “new” evidence for decades.

If it's a religiously related claim of new evidence undermining evolution, then academics are unlikely to waste their time looking at that, because religious beliefs are not a credible way to determine what is likely to be actually true about anything in the world around us … and, they will already have all seen countless fraudulent ID claims … so they are unlikely to want to waste their time and waste public money on trying to check what anyone presents as a claim of evidence for ID or Creationism.

And as a last simple comment – you may not appreciate how much time & effort typically goes into a piece of science before it gets published as a paper in a real science research journal. But a paper is often the final result of many years of constant daily studies, tests, and experiments … in many aspects of research, a whole research team (maybe 3, 5, or 10 people) might take a decade or more before they have enough high quality data to submit a paper worth publishing (and the Journal will always reject any such paper if the editorial board of international peer-review experts decides that it does not reach the required standard, either for accuracy or as something actually new, novel, and important … many research groups go for many years without being able to get any papers published on what has become their life's work).

 

[GDon]

I guess that could be done but I think theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses? The next step for me is to confirm that the results can be confirmed, one way of which is to publish in peer reviewed publications for others to confirm the results.

GDon doesn’t seem to understand what a scientific theory is and the process of creating one.

No, I think I'm right. Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses:

Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

"God did it," isn't a scientific theory. It's hardly a hypothesis. What it is, is a superstition.

Completely agree.

 

[Leumas]

GDon doesn’t seem to understand what a scientific theory is and the process of creating one.

And below is yet one more proof to add to the litany throughout this thread...

No, I think I'm right. Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses:
Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

"God did it," isn't a scientific theory. It's hardly a hypothesis. What it is, is a superstition.

Completely agree.

But yet... you keep calling the Imbecilic Design poppycock a hypothesis that one day might topple scientific consensus if only they keep chipping away at the defenses of science in order to shove it into the back door.

It's not very different. Showing the validity of a new hypothesis by building a body of work through peer review is how the scientific consensus gets changed. ID proponents are going through that process. Who knows? Maybe their views will gain traction in the scientific community. Currently there is no evidence for the validity of the ID hypothesis, but let them keep trying. That's what science is all about.

And you said that "god did it" IS science because they managed to fake "peer" reviewed articles in a "scientific journal".... nothing about not being science regardless.

There are qualified academics producing peer reviewed articles for intelligent design. In what way is that not science?

...
Anyone who appreciates science as science should be celebrating the publication of ID articles in peer review. It's the difference between religious claims and scientific claims.

If anyone has a problem with the idea that ID claims have been published in scientific journals and have passed peer review, then they have a problem with science.

 

[acbytesla]

No, I think I'm right. Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses:

No, a theory is an explanation of how it all works together. It's not more about predictions. It's about everything. Predictions are useful because they test the theory. If the predictions don't work, then the explanation/theory requires either adjustments or abandonment.

Reasons why "God did it" isn't science.

1.Because it appeals to supernatural causation. Science is necessarily an explanation of the natural.

2. Because it's not built on observation or testing of any kind.

3. Science requires rigorous skepticism.

4. It requires an open mind which means an ability to admit when it doesn’t work.

Behe and Meyer are qualified scientists, and they might get published, but they aren’t practicing science. They are practicing science sophistry. It sounds like science. But it isn’t.

 

[slyjoe]

In discussions like these, I like to remind people of the null hypothesis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23249368/

Basically, the scientific method requires that you try to falsify your theory, not try to prove it.

 

[acbytesla]

In discussions like these, I like to remind people of the null hypothesis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23249368/

Basically, the scientific method requires that you try to falsify your theory, not try to prove it.

YES!

"God dit it," will never be an accepted scientific theory because its proponents not only don't attempt to falsify it, they almost always won't.

 

[bruto]

I am trying to think of a meaningful experiment or interpretation of existing events that would involve prediction without hypothesis. What use is it to predict something without having any idea about why it happens or even why you care whether it does or not? I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, and even that involves the most basic hypothesis that there is some regularity in the universe, even if I know no more and seek to learn no more than that.

Even if you just throw jelly at the wall and hope something sticks, there's a bit of hypothesis involved unless you're under a certain age and just a tosser.

 

[Leumas]

I am trying to think of a meaningful experiment or interpretation of existing events that would involve prediction without hypothesis. What use is it to predict something without having any idea about why it happens or even why you care whether it does or not? I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, and even that involves the most basic hypothesis that there is some regularity in the universe, even if I know no more and seek to learn no more than that.

Even if you just throw jelly at the wall and hope something sticks, there's a bit of hypothesis involved unless you're under a certain age and just a tosser.

This is my humble opinion... based on experience and lots of heartache.

1. Observe... collect data
2. Ponder... why, how this data
3. Make a Hypothesis... for how and why the data is as it is
4. Use the hypothesis to derive interpolations as well as extrapolations... i.e. predictions for what data will be expected when the hypothesis is applied to conditions hypothesized to result into the data previously observed as well as data not yet collected
5. Devise experiments and observations and research to test the predictive and explanatory ability of the hypothesis
6. Make sure you have not fooled yourself and that the experiments and results have not been subject to confirmation bias and other biases.
   • If yes then go back to step #4
   • If not then proceed to step #7
7. Have colleagues and others replicate your experiments and tests and even come up with their own to test your hypothesis' predictive correctness
   • here you may publish or
   • just have other research centers help you out
8. If problems then refine and adjust and rethink the hypothesis
   • if you can do that go back to step #4
   • if not then reject the hypothesis and go back to step #3
9. Go back to step #1
   • When this is carried out enough times and the hypothesis withstands new data and keeps on being successful in explaining the new data
   • It rises to the level of theory
   • Publish... write books... give lectures/seminars etc.
   • Go back to step #1

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, I think I'm right. Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses:

Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

No. One definition of a natural law versus a theory is as follows:

A natural law is what we observe in reality, consistently. (e.g. an apple that drops from a tree will hit the grund).

A theory is an explanation of why that happens. (e.g. masses attract each other).

The implies that all science starts with observation. Once you have validated your observation is true and consistent (not always as easy as one might think), you can form a hypothesis of what might be the reason.

You can now try to turn your hypothesis into a theory. This is where predictions come in: Will your hypothesis predict the observation?

Next step is falsification: Which kind of observations might show your hypothesis to be wrong? Note that this may be observations not yet made, in which case your responsibility is to try and make such observations.

Here comes the first hurdle: If no observations can be made to show your hypothesis to be wrong you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, so it is outside the realm of science, e.g. God did it.

Next, if reasonable predictions seem to be fulfilled, it is time to publish. Now others will test your results, and try to falsify your hypothesis.

If it passes this test, it qualifies as a theory. Note that even the best theory is always liable to be disproven by new observations. In fact, the more established and famous it is, the more researchers will strive to put a dent in it.

......

So, how would you try and topple the theory of evolution (TOE)? Well, there are a number of classical potential observations that might falsify it. Prime examples are:

Irreducible complexity. TOE predicts that changes happen stepwise with no single step being seriously detrimental to the individuals having them.

Sequential development. We should not see a fossil record where late developments predated early ones.

There are others ...

Irreducible complexity is one of the prime targets of ID and Creationism proponents, for a good reason: It is a strong point and it is often difficult, especially for lay people, to see how complex features like vision could evolve.

Out of sequence fossils is another. If you found a fossil of a modern bird in a Triassic strata, it would require a really good explanation. Creationists have tried to interpret footprints as those of humans, beside dinosaur footprints, even to the point of faking them (chisel marks).

One strong problem here is that ancient deposits are often seriously disturbed by ice ages and geological activity. In fact, whole sequences of strata have been found upside down in some places.

But to GDon: The first thing you would have to do is to find yourself some observations.

Hans

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I think I'm right. Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses:

Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. ....

Have you ever bothered to look at the scientific definitions or theory and hypothesis?

If you don't like the replies you get you might consider that before you post.

 

[acbytesla]

No. One definition of a natural law versus a theory is as follows:

A natural law is what we observe in reality, consistently. (e.g. an apple that drops from a tree will hit the grund).

A theory is an explanation of why that happens. (e.g. masses attract each other).

The implies that all science starts with observation. Once you have validated your observation is true and consistent (not always as easy as one might think), you can form a hypothesis of what might be the reason.

You can now try to turn your hypothesis into a theory. This is where predictions come in: Will your hypothesis predict the observation?

Next step is falsification: Which kind of observations might show your hypothesis to be wrong? Note that this may be observations not yet made, in which case your responsibility is to try and make such observations.

Here comes the first hurdle: If no observations can be made to show your hypothesis to be wrong you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, so it is outside the realm of science, e.g. God did it.

Next, if reasonable predictions seem to be fulfilled, it is time to publish. Now others will test your results, and try to falsify your hypothesis.

If it passes this test, it qualifies as a theory. Note that even the best theory is always liable to be disproven by new observations. In fact, the more established and famous it is, the more researchers will strive to put a dent in it.

......

So, how would you try and topple the theory of evolution (TOE)? Well, there are a number of classical potential observations that might falsify it. Prime examples are:

Irreducible complexity. TOE predicts that changes happen stepwise with no single step being seriously detrimental to the individuals having them.

Sequential development. We should not see a fossil record where late developments predated early ones.

There are others ...

Irreducible complexity is one of the prime targets of ID and Creationism proponents, for a good reason: It is a strong point and it is often difficult, especially for lay people, to see how complex features like vision could evolve.

Out of sequence fossils is another. If you found a fossil of a modern bird in a Triassic strata, it would require a really good explanation. Creationists have tried to interpret footprints as those of humans, beside dinosaur footprints, even to the point of faking them (chisel marks).

One strong problem here is that ancient deposits are often seriously disturbed by ice ages and geological activity. In fact, whole sequences of strata have been found upside down in some places.

But to GDon: The first thing you would have to do is to find yourself some observations.

Hans

You would also have to ignore the mountains of data that show that examples of irreducible complexity that aren’t actually irreducibly complex. IE:The bacterium flagellum.

And even if you did, that wouldn't prove a designer. There are lots of complex biological stuctures that appear to have no function. And that are remarkably similar to biological structures on other organisms that do. IE: vestigial organs and limbs.

 

[GDon]

No, I think I'm right. Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses:

No, a theory is an explanation of how it all works together. It's not more about predictions.

"Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses."

 

[GDon]

Have you ever bothered to look at the scientific definitions or theory and hypothesis?

If you don't like the replies you get you might consider that before you post.

No, by all means please enlighten me! What are the scientific definitions of theory and hypothesis, such as they differ from the ones I gave (which admittedly I found on the Internet)?

 

[GDon]

<snipped>

But to GDon: The first thing you would have to do is to find yourself some observations.

Exactly. Well said!

For those of you who are only reading the replies to my comments and not my comments themselves: I regard ID as a 'failed hypothesis', since the observations that were presented as evidence for ID -- that is, observations supporting IC -- don't pan out. Thus there is no evidence for ID. Some people argue that ID doesn't even rise to the level of a 'failed hypothesis', and fair enough. Thus the discussion over the minutiae of the meaning of hypothesis.

As always, please quote me if you want to highlight something I've written. It's a waste of time to respond to things that I haven't written.

 

[sphenisc]

I regard ID as a 'failed hypothesis', since the observations that were presented as evidence for ID -- that is, observations supporting IC -- don't pan out. Thus there is no evidence for ID. .

Why is that the only evidence for ID you've considered?

 

[Leumas]

"Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses."

No they are not... you have been told numerous times that you are totally wrong but you still persist in repeating your error.

Repeating errors over and over incessantly and indefatigably does not magically make them become correct.

No, by all means please enlighten me! What are the scientific definitions of theory and hypothesis, such as they differ from the ones I gave (which admittedly I found on the Internet)?

Your inability to search probably on the internet for correct definitions of things or more probably your incorrect interpretation of what you found on the internet ... does not make your error correct.

 

[Leumas]

Exactly. Well said!

For those of you who are only reading the replies to my comments and not my comments themselves: I regard ID as a 'failed hypothesis'

Yet you think it is science and are hoping one day it might topple scientific consensus if only they keep chipping away at the defenses of science in order to shove it into the back door.

It's not very different. Showing the validity of a new hypothesis by building a body of work through peer review is how the scientific consensus gets changed. ID proponents are going through that process. Who knows? Maybe their views will gain traction in the scientific community. Currently there is no evidence for the validity of the ID hypothesis, but let them keep trying. That's what science is all about.

And you said that Imbecilic Design IS science because they managed to fake "peer" reviewed articles in a "scientific journal".... nothing about not being science regardless.

There are qualified academics producing peer reviewed articles for intelligent design. In what way is that not science?

...
Anyone who appreciates science as science should be celebrating the publication of ID articles in peer review. It's the difference between religious claims and scientific claims.
If anyone has a problem with the idea that ID claims have been published in scientific journals and have passed peer review, then they have a problem with science.

 

[acbytesla]

"Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses."

I guess if we are saying "accepted theories" lead to "successful predictions" than "failed hypotheses," you would be correct. However a prediction is a hypothesis and vice versa. So it could never be more one than the other.

And a theory isn't just about making predictions, it is a broad explanation for why reality is what it is.

 

[Delvo]

I regard ID as a 'failed hypothesis', since the observations that were presented as evidence for ID -- that is, observations supporting IC -- don't pan out.

It was never any kind of hypothesis because there were never observations which led anybody to it. That simply isn't a process which ever happened.

What they had all along were not observations but a starting point, Creationism, which they wanted to pretend was a conclusion. So they started coming up with excuses for it, to pretend were observations.

Before they figured out to try to sneak away from the word "Creationism", the "argument for/from design" was circulated for years among explicitly Creationist outlets and in Creationist debates, because it was just Creationism.

Then all they did was avoid the word "Creationism" and start pretending that any part of Creationism as it had always been known had ever had anything to do with coming up with hypotheses to explain observations. You are simply repeating a Creationist lie for them. That's all there is to this.

 

[Leumas]

...
As always, please quote me if you want to highlight something I've written. It's a waste of time to respond to things that I haven't written.

Here is something that you wrote and which you need to read and heed...

In a similar vein, and to paraphrase CS Lewis: Nothing worse than trying to defend weak arguments in defence of your worldview.....

Sometimes people continually using bad arguments do more harm against their own side than anything the other side can do....