The observation that several people with Wegener's Granulomatosis, whose disease had previously been refractory to treatment, improved when placed on Bactrim for other reasons.
How is that not evidence that Bactrim improves the condition of people with Wegener's Granulomatosis?
A theory can form the basis of speculation (such as the formation of a hypothesis). But that hypothesis may require additional observations to serve as evidence for its truth.
In general, a hypothesis must be supported by evidence. If the evidence is strong and holds up to repeated testing, hypotheses may form the basis of a theory.
For example, a randomized-double-blind-placebo-controlled trial would serve as evidence of the efficacy of Bactrim in refractory Wegener's Granulomatosis. Prior to collecting that evidence, the idea would represent speculation on a theoretical or hypothetical basis.
In the example above, the observation
is evidence that Bactrim improves the condition of people with Wegener's Granulomatosis. It's just not
conclusive evidence -- it's not as strong as a randomized-double-blind-placebo-controlled trial would be.
As Randfan has already pointed out, speculation on each variable comes from information/hypothesis/theory.
Speculation about many of the variables comes from little or no information, hypothesis, or theory (any of which would be considered evidence). Some of the variables are based on little more than conjecture. They are not "educated guesses" -- they are just guesses.
Speculation about God has no theoretical or hypothetical basis.
If you're talking about basis in scientific theory or hypothesis, speculation about a god has about as much theoretical or hypothetical basis as speculation about aliens does. Some of the variables are based on evidence, others on pure conjecture.
The information that has been used to support the idea of God has been discovered to be better explained by other theories.
No, sorry. There is no known mechanism to explain why the universal constants happen to have precisely the values needed for life. That is not to say that there are no explanations possible, only that none are known.
This is why theists have been reduced to frankly silly arguments about fine-tuning if they want to make God a rational choice - all the information they used in the past has been taken away.
We haven't even begun a discussion of whether belief in something without conclusive evidence (i.e. belief based on faith) is necessarily irrational -- you're merely asserting that it is. I'm fine moving onto that discussion if you like.
Sure there is. Each of the rest of the variables was proposed on the basis of information.
I'm not sure how you're using the word "information" here. It seems to mean something other than "evidence" but yet somehow can be used to support a proposition.
There is no known information that can lead to the conclusion that aliens are probable. There is no known information that allows us to determine the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet, much less how probable it would be for it to have occurred elsewhere.
Other than complaining about the ability to measure some of the variables, you haven't criticized the actual formation of those variables.
What do you mean by "the actual formation of those variables?" There is no information upon which to base a value for many of the variables.
I don't think that's the question at all. No one seems to be suggesting that the answer is anything but "I don't know" at present.
Of course you can be agnostic about everything and not be irrational. The question is whether you're allowed to have an opinion about something for which there is no conclusive evidence without it being irrational.
So, sure, people who believe that aliens exist also admit that they don't know for sure. To label such a belief as necessarily irrational for gods but not for aliens seems to require some special pleading.
What Randfan said. The theory of abiogenesis, the theory of evolution, the theory of formation of planetary systems, etc.
Abiogenesis is not a theory, it's the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. But yes, theories that can be used to support some of the variables of Drake's equation, but they do
not form a theory of aliens. There are no theories or hypotheses dealing with other variables of the Drake equation, while there are theories and hypotheses such as the Rare Earth Hypothesis which seem to indicate that aliens may not exist. There is no evidence to support the notion that aliens or gods are probable.
You are mixing up the ability to estimate a measurement with the ability to form an idea about what it is that we should try to measure. Those are two separate aspects. I don't disagree that some of the variables are difficult to measure, and you don't seem to disagree that the chosen variables are relevant.
What do you mean by "chosen variables?"
God is based on theories and hypotheses?
Please re-read my statement. I did not say that God is based on theories and hypotheses. What I said is that fine-tuning is in part based on theory and hypothesis, the same way that the number of stars (one variable of the Drake equation) is in part based on theory and hypothesis.
-Bri
JREF order of merit awarded this date, two-aught-aught-nine, for dedication above and beyond call of doody to a thread about the rationality of bayesian fine-tuning & drake's equation, to SusanB-M1...
I can suggest many such theories.... 