arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
You have made it quite clear that you do not understand science.csense said:
Intelligent Design on PBS
- Thread starter Starrman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- design intelligent pbs
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
I can only hope that "signing off" is more permanent this time. You don't seem to want to discuss ID, every time someone presses you try to change ths subject, to relativity or emergence or anything else.csense said:
csense said:
I'm afraid I don't follow you. For a hypothesis to be scientific, there must be a way to show that it is wrong.
If a hypothesis is false, that doesn't mean that it wasn't scientific. It just has limited (perhaps zero) explanatory or predictive power.
Therefore, there are two ways in which science could fail to observe something: the hypothesis was scientific, but false (in which case science does not observe it) or the hypothesis was unscientific (in which case science cannot observe it).
For this reason, I believe your last sentence is not necessarily true and I cannot agree with it.
Brian the Snail
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2002
- Messages
- 962
csense said:
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't. The point of Einstein's gedankenexperiment was to show that the physics in the non-inertial (accelerating) frame is identical to that in a gravitational frame. Hence no experiment can distiguish between them, and hence the two frames are equivalent to each other. In other words, gravitation and acceleration are the same thing.
This doesn't seem to be an example of your statement "similar patterns within systems or mechanisms, do not infer similar sytems or mechanisms." In fact, in this case similar patterns between systems, do infer similar systems. Unless I've misunderstood your statement, which is a possiblity since it is far from clear.
And perhaps I missed something, but where did Einstein use "the principle of contradiction" to reach his conclusion?
[Edited to add "non" before "inertial"]
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Umm, don't want to seem too picky here, but how many people here critisizing PBS have actually seen this program? The starter of the thread saw half of it. Has anyone seen the whole thing?
If not, do you think it might be better to actually see the program before attacking it?
If not, do you think it might be better to actually see the program before attacking it?
You are correct, science is a method. It has rules. The rules are not a mystery.
With a little effort, even the most novice student could be shown what constitutes a good hypothesis from a poor one.
ID is a poor hypothesis according the the rigors of science.
To forward ID as science is at best, pseudoscience.
csense said:
I fail to see your point. No one's arguing that they can't say what they are saying. But, to spuriously promulgate these theories as some iconoclastic view of evolution being adopted by the mainstream that is more legitimate or somehow inherently "better" and more complete, when they are in fact only opinions from select scientists that are based on a unsubstantiable belief system, and put out a show that does not offer any disputing opinions on their theories is dubious at best.
Free speech is not the issue. Underhanded, misrepresentative, and misleading information as to the true direction of current, mainstream science's view on this subject is and is also, by definition, a hidden agenda.
-TT
(P.S. I have not yet read the rest of the thread; I stopped and commented when I saw csense's irrelevant response)
csense said:
Ugggh.... no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!
This is a demonstrative example of someone who clearly does not understand "science", the scientific method, and the concept of empiricism. And, it is an excellent example of tortured logic.
Empiricism, in the truest sense, is observational. We build theories based on cumulative observations. However, individual studies that help build that empirical "knowledge" must meet the rigors of the scientific method: falsifiable premise, presence of testible null hypothesis, rigorous controls, reproducibility.
What ultimately happens is, after you accumulate enough good data and irrefutable studies, a larger "truth" will often emerge about a particular area of study. Further tests are conducted to better define (or refute) that larger truth.
Empirical observations that are never tested or are irreproducible are worthless. For example, someone may observe a particular phenomenon and come the wrong conclusion about what is causing it. Intelligent Design falls into that category for several reasons and is therefore not "scientific".
Empricism does not equal Science automatically, and vice versa. But, careful observation that is appropriately tested builds theories. Those theories, based on the prepoderance of evidence, are deemed to be either "likely true" or "unlikely". Nothing can be "empirically true". There are no absolutes. And, this doesn't mean that you accept any theory that sounds plausible. That flies completely in the face of Science.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,631
On this issue of a theory not needing to be correct in order to be science, I think it might be instructive to take a look back at some of the scientific theories that were wrong. In particular, I'm thinking of a pre-darwinian concept of evolution. The classic example is the long necks of giraffes - how did they develop? One pre-darwinian theory held that because giraffes stretched their necks to reach high branches, they would become more elongated with time, and that this would cause their offspring to have longer necks. This theory is scientific, because it is testable and falsifiable. It is, of course, wrong. We know this now, though it would have been difficult to disprove back before the discovery of genetics. But was and is a scientific theory.
Similarly, Darwinian evolution is scientific. As a practical matter, we are limited in our ability to test it, but these are not fundamental limits and we may be able to overcome them. If in the end it proves to be incorrect, that doesn't change the fact that it is not only a scientific theory, but also the best theory by far that we have now to explain evolution and the development of species. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. There is no means to test any of its conjectures (not just in practice, but even in principle), there isn't even a definition of what qualifies as irreducible complexity. No testability, no falsifiablitity, no definition of terms: it's not science.
Similarly, Darwinian evolution is scientific. As a practical matter, we are limited in our ability to test it, but these are not fundamental limits and we may be able to overcome them. If in the end it proves to be incorrect, that doesn't change the fact that it is not only a scientific theory, but also the best theory by far that we have now to explain evolution and the development of species. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. There is no means to test any of its conjectures (not just in practice, but even in principle), there isn't even a definition of what qualifies as irreducible complexity. No testability, no falsifiablitity, no definition of terms: it's not science.
csense said:
Do you understand that a "scientific theory" has to be potentially falsifiable?
Do you understand that ID isn't?
Do you understand that that, alone, without any further consideration, rejects ID as a scientific theory?
Your suggestion of religious discrimination is in and of itself a manipulitive, misguided, and highly offensive example of trying to cause discrimination by claiming it.
csense said:
I think that the viewers are also due a warning that "this is not a science program, it is religion falsely disguised as science, using a presentation that is forthrightly misleading, that ignores data, and misrepresents data that is represented".
In other words, the program needs a disclaimer pointing out that its claims are not scientific, they are not inclusive of all of the available data, and that the program was arranged to create a false impression of validity for a bunch of pseudoscience.
Is that clear?
