Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
Kent Paul Dolan
even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
lines, either.
Ye Old One
Good find, thanks for sharing it :)
--
Bob.
Frank J
I like the strip, but of course, a well-trained IDer will simply say
that ID is not about God. By the time one shows the examples to the
contrary (e.g. Dembski's "logos/Logos" articles), it's usually too
late.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Frank J
<fn...@comcast.net>:
>On Jan 12, 7:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
>> even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
>>
>> For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
>> why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
>> creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
>>
>> http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
>>
>> xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
>> it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
>> lines, either.
>
>I like the strip, but of course, a well-trained IDer will simply say
>that ID is not about God.
Even if correct this is irrelevant, since ID makes zero
testable predictions, about God or anything else. So it's
*still* not a theory.
> By the time one shows the examples to the
>contrary (e.g. Dembski's "logos/Logos" articles), it's usually too
>late.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
topmind
The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
testable.
Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.
Whether theologians want to bother testing for Zeta Glignok's logo in
DNA is another matter.
-t-
Frank J
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:55:33 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Frank J
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 12, 7:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> >> Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
> >> even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
>
> >> For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
> >> why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
> >> creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
>
> >>http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
>
> >> xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
> >> it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
> >> lines, either.
>
> >I like the strip, but of course, a well-trained IDer will simply say
> >that ID is not about God.
>
> Even if correct this is irrelevant, since ID makes zero
> testable predictions, about God or anything else. So it's
> *still* not a theory.
Well it - or more correctly it's chief architects, as ID itself has
never taken a position - started out with a vague, testable starement
of how the design was actuated (Behe's designed first cell), but has
steadily retreated from there. The exact opposite of what real science
would do. It's like they are shouting between the lines, "Classic
creationism is failed science, so ID doesn't even try to be science.
That way we can never fail."
>
> > By the time one shows the examples to the
> >contrary (e.g. Dembski's "logos/Logos" articles), it's usually too
> >late.
>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike L
[...]
>
> The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
> creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
> photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
> testable.
>
> Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.
>
> Whether theologians want to bother testing for Zeta Glignok's logo in
> DNA is another matter.
You will, I hope, forgive me for saying that it's impossible to tell
from your message whether you are ingenuous or disingenuous. There is
no point at all in even raising the question of an intelligent
designer if one doesn't treat the expression as a synonym, even a
euphemism, for "creator", which is to say, God. At least the idea of
an eternal invisible God has a certain limited consistency: an
apparently uncreated but non-supernatural demiurge who has all the
same powers of imagination and construction and didn't leave the
slightest trace is at best an insane play on words.
--
Mike.
Kermit
> On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
> > Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
> > even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
>
> > For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
> > why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
> > creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
>
> >http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
>
> > xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
> > it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
> > lines, either.
>
> The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
> creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
> photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
> testable.
Ah. All those biologists who are not religious who insist that there
is a designer, yes. Refresh my memory and name one or two, could you?
>
> Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.
>
> Whether theologians want to bother testing for Zeta Glignok's logo in
> DNA is another matter.
>
> -t-
So what would disprove this "hypothesis"? Not finding photos or other
messages encoded in human DNA, using the .jpg file format, by 2010? If
you cannot predict where and under what circumstances they would be
found, it is not testable.
"Testable" means that there is a possibility that the prediction will
not come true, at least in principle. Under which circumstances will
you admit that failing to find these messages disproves ID? Oh, wait,
there's still one *more genome to examine... Besides, this is only a
*possible consequence of ID, not a necessary one. Maybe the Designer
(wink, wink) left some other clues. Or not.
Kermit
Vend
Not to mention that if you know the input and the output beforehand
you can always find an algorithm that "decodes" one into the other.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
<top...@technologist.com>:
>On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
>> even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
>>
>> For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
>> why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
>> creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
>>
>> http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
>>
>> xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
>> it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
>> lines, either.
>
>
>The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
>creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
>photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
>testable.
Really? How? What test could be administered, the failure of
which would disprove ID?
>Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.
Irrelevant. Even if science succeeds in creating life in the
lab that says zero about the origin of existing life. Or
does the fact that we can create diamonds mean that the
Kimberly deposits are the result of "Intelligent Diamond
Creation"?
>Whether theologians want to bother testing for Zeta Glignok's logo in
>DNA is another matter.
And if they don't find it (or anything else "constructed"),
do you imagine that would refute ID?
Desertphile
<top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
> > even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
> >
> > For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
> > why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
> > creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
> >
> > http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
> >
> > xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
> > it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
> > lines, either.
> The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
> creator.
Then why are all "intelligent design" Creationism believers and
promoters Fundamentalist Christians? Won't they go to HELLFIRE
everlasting for denying the Christian gods?!
"Intelligent design" Creationism is a part of Fundamentalist
Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam. You cultists had your
chance in court, and in the science arena, to demonstrate
otherwise and you cultists couldn't do it.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Still waiting for that test. Maybe something off the top of
your mind?
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
> creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
> photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
> testable.
Oh boy, Bryce is back.
Over a year ago you were challenged to produce a scientific theory
that made falsifiable predictions. After a prodigious amount of
nonsense, in which you demonstrated a breathtaking lack of knowledge
on a wide variety of topics, you disappeared.
Now you're back on a similar topic. One can only assume that you've
spent the intervening time rectifying your knowledge deficits
(although a year would only begin to scratch the surface in your
case). Any other alternative would indicate gross intellectual
dishonesty. So, what is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
How does it differ from the Bryce Jacobs DNA-ID non-hypothesis:
"Some being or beings may have manipulated some genome or genomes on
Earth at so me point in time in the recent or deep past and may have
left some unknown pattern encoded in some unknown fashion using some
unknown technique for some unknown purpose. Maybe."
BJ
----
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dfa00a58f25f28ac:
Bryce Jacobs (top...@technologist.com) wrote:
| First make a list of the first 500 prime numbers:
| A: 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 29 .....
Kent Paul Dolan
> Any other alternative would indicate
> gross intellectual dishonesty.
Please indicate how _this_ intellectual
dishonesty differs from _your_ intellectual
dishonesty in creating an account that
represents you to be the person you are
criticizing. How does sowing confusion in
these discussions help anyone? That's a
tactic best left to the creationists, for
whom "sowing confusion" is their only hope
of prevailing in this debate.
xanthian.
Ron O
Topmind in what?
This guy is so over the top compared to everyone else that he has to
argue with himself.
Maybe he is just trying to parody an ID/creationist. Sort of a self
defeating thing to do.
Ron Okimoto
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
I'm not trying to impersonate Bryce Jacobs, only to mock him. Please
check his posting history, especially a little over a year ago, to see
why rational discussion with him is useless. He's aggressively
ignorant and demonstrably ineducable.
I picked this sock puppet for two reasons. First, to demonstrate
that, despite his claims to technical competence, he can't even hide
behind a pseudonym very well, and second, frankly, to annoy him. That
has worked remarkably well.
He's not using his given name, why shouldn't I? ;-)
topmind
Why not? Monsanto tinkers with life, so perhaps aliens tinkered with
Earth life. And such is testable in ways similar to SETI's.
>
> --
> Mike.
-T-
topmind
Kermit wrote:
> On Jan 12, 10:06 pm, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
> > > even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
> >
> > > For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
> > > why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
> > > creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
> >
> > >http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
> >
> > > xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
> > > it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
> > > lines, either.
> >
> > The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
> > creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
> > photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
> > testable.
>
> Ah. All those biologists who are not religious who insist that there
> is a designer, yes. Refresh my memory and name one or two, could you?
You are confusing proponent motivations with ideas.
>
> >
> > Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.
> >
> > Whether theologians want to bother testing for Zeta Glignok's logo in
> > DNA is another matter.
> >
> > -t-
>
> So what would disprove this "hypothesis"? Not finding photos or other
> messages encoded in human DNA, using the .jpg file format, by 2010? If
> you cannot predict where and under what circumstances they would be
> found, it is not testable.
How are SETI hypotheses disproved? Take Dyson Sphere detection as an
example.
Science does not require both a way of proving AND disproving if we
look at other ideas, such as multiverses, anthropic principle, and
many others.
>
> "Testable" means that there is a possibility that the prediction will
> not come true, at least in principle. Under which circumstances will
> you admit that failing to find these messages disproves ID? Oh, wait,
> there's still one *more genome to examine... Besides, this is only a
> *possible consequence of ID, not a necessary one. Maybe the Designer
> (wink, wink) left some other clues. Or not.
>
> Kermit
-T-
topmind
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:06:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
> <top...@technologist.com>:
>
> >On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> >> Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
> >> even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
> >>
> >> For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
> >> why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
> >> creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
> >>
> >> http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
> >>
> >> xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
> >> it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
> >> lines, either.
> >
> >
> >The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
> >creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
> >photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
> >testable.
>
> Really? How? What test could be administered, the failure of
> which would disprove ID?
See nearby SETI comparisons.
>
> >Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.
>
> Irrelevant. Even if science succeeds in creating life in the
> lab that says zero about the origin of existing life. Or
> does the fact that we can create diamonds mean that the
> Kimberly deposits are the result of "Intelligent Diamond
> Creation"?
So all forms of ID are only meant to deal with the *original* origin
of life? Where do you come by this? Perhaps Behe's version does, I
don't know. But his is not the only form of ID. Personally, I don't
give a shit about Behe. But I do think some forms of ID are as
scientific as SETI.
>
> >Whether theologians want to bother testing for Zeta Glignok's logo in
> >DNA is another matter.
>
> And if they don't find it (or anything else "constructed"),
> do you imagine that would refute ID?
And if SETI doesn't find signals or Dyson spheres?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
-T-
topmind
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:19:05 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
> Still waiting for that test. Maybe something off the top of
> your mind?
Is that my job?
At what point did SETI suddenly become "science"? It gradually
proceeded from a back-of-the-napkin idea into formal listening tests.
When and what is the stage that switched it from non-science to
science?
(I don't think science is a Boolean concept, but some treat it as if
it is.)
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:06:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
> ><topm...@technologist.com>:
-T-
topmind
> On Jan 16, 5:38 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
> > bryce.topmind.jac...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Any other alternative would indicate
> > > gross intellectual dishonesty.
>
> > Please indicate how _this_ intellectual
> > dishonesty differs from _your_ intellectual
> > dishonesty in creating an account that
> > represents you to be the person you are
> > criticizing. How does sowing confusion in
> > these discussions help anyone? That's a
> > tactic best left to the creationists, for
> > whom "sowing confusion" is their only hope
> > of prevailing in this debate.
>
> > xanthian.
>
> Topmind in what?
I know, its a stupid handle. I've been too lazy to change it.
>
> This guy is so over the top compared to everyone else that he has to
> argue with himself.
>
> Maybe he is just trying to parody an ID/creationist. Sort of a self
> defeating thing to do.
>
> Ron Okimoto
-T-
Kent Paul Dolan
> One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by
> finding say photographs and logos hidden in DNA.
Well, no, since falsifying ID without proponents of
ID providing an agreed method of falsification,
currently requires a proof that _no evidence_ of
intelligent design exists in genotypes or
phenotypes, a task impossible even in concept (the
testers would among other things be required to
disassemble themselves entirely, in order to perform
such a test) _even though_ every such test made
finds no such evidence, not that no "photographs or
logos" are hidden in DNA.
> Thus, ID, as written, *is* testable.
Well, no, since "signed works of art" are no part of
the claim of ID, thus tests to confirm or deny that
DNA contains signed works of art have no
applicability to falsifying ID.
xanthian.
Steven L.
> On Jan 15, 3:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:19:05 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>
>> Still waiting for that test. Maybe something off the top of
>> your mind?
>
> Is that my job?
>
> At what point did SETI suddenly become "science"? It gradually
> proceeded from a back-of-the-napkin idea into formal listening tests.
> When and what is the stage that switched it from non-science to
> science?
When it stopped handwaving about the Drake Equation (which is NOT a
testable scientific hypothesis), and started doing real experiments to
test specific testable scientific hypotheses.
A scientific hypothesis for SETI would be: "Within the range of our
detector [say 500 light years], either we will or we will not find a
radio signal of extraterrestrial origin that passes tests for being the
product of intelligent thought." And yes, those experiments are being
done, those scientific papers are being written, and they are being
accepted in peer review.
An equivalent hypothesis for ID would be: "For the DNA of the following
species [pick a species], there either are or are not sequences of DNA
which pass tests for being the product of intelligent thought."
If ID proceeded like that, it would be considered more scientific than
it currently is. But that isn't what we're getting from ID researchers.
Instead, what we're getting from them is:
a) endless critiques of Darwin;
b) statistical arguments about complexity and irreducible design
(whatever that means), which have mostly been refuted later
c) and a whole lot of handwaving, rather than a model of what they think
actually happened
BTW, the SETI researchers are also honest about their failings. When
they're interviewed on TV or in a magazine, they will tell you
unhesitatingly that they haven't detected a damned thing yet.
That is, if anything, even more true for ID. They just refuse to admit it.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
topmind
Desertphile wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:06:29 -0800 (PST), topmind
> <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > > Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
> > > even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
> > >
> > > For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
> > > why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
> > > creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
> > >
> > > http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
> > >
> > > xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
> > > it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
> > > lines, either.
>
> > The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
> > creator.
>
> Then why are all "intelligent design" Creationism believers and
> promoters Fundamentalist Christians? Won't they go to HELLFIRE
> everlasting for denying the Christian gods?!
>
> "Intelligent design" Creationism is a part of Fundamentalist
> Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam. You cultists had your
> chance in court, and in the science arena, to demonstrate
> otherwise and you cultists couldn't do it.
I think the ID lawyers did a dismal job. They went for the whole
kitten-kabootal instead of cleaned up their claims.
>
>
> --
> http://desertphile.org
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
-T-
topmind
Steven L. wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 3:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:19:05 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
> >>
> >> Still waiting for that test. Maybe something off the top of
> >> your mind?
> >
> > Is that my job?
> >
> > At what point did SETI suddenly become "science"? It gradually
> > proceeded from a back-of-the-napkin idea into formal listening tests.
> > When and what is the stage that switched it from non-science to
> > science?
>
> When it stopped handwaving about the Drake Equation (which is NOT a
> testable scientific hypothesis), and started doing real experiments to
> test specific testable scientific hypotheses.
>
> A scientific hypothesis for SETI would be: "Within the range of our
> detector [say 500 light years], either we will or we will not find a
> radio signal of extraterrestrial origin that passes tests for being the
> product of intelligent thought." And yes, those experiments are being
> done, those scientific papers are being written, and they are being
> accepted in peer review.
>
> An equivalent hypothesis for ID would be: "For the DNA of the following
> species [pick a species], there either are or are not sequences of DNA
> which pass tests for being the product of intelligent thought."
In both cases, finding an "interesting" pattern would likely merely be
the starting point for further research rather than the end in itself.
>
> If ID proceeded like that, it would be considered more scientific than
> it currently is. But that isn't what we're getting from ID researchers.
>
> Instead, what we're getting from them is:
>
> a) endless critiques of Darwin;
> b) statistical arguments about complexity and irreducible design
> (whatever that means), which have mostly been refuted later
> c) and a whole lot of handwaving, rather than a model of what they think
> actually happened
>
> BTW, the SETI researchers are also honest about their failings. When
> they're interviewed on TV or in a magazine, they will tell you
> unhesitatingly that they haven't detected a damned thing yet.
>
> That is, if anything, even more true for ID. They just refuse to admit it.
But one has to be careful of confusing bad science with bad
scientists. Some aspects of ID are testable. But whether ID
"enthusiasts" go about it right is another matter. I don't dispute
there are highly biased people involved in ID research. But I do
dispute that the ideas in ID are "untestable" or inherently
"unscientific". Yet, it is repeatedly claimed as such.
Cleaning it up, though, may indeed upset the "enthusiasts". So be it.
>
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
-T-
Free Lunch
topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote in
<0b3b9325-b529-4e1f...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>Desertphile wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:06:29 -0800 (PST), topmind
>> <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> > > Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
>> > > even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
>> > >
>> > > For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
>> > > why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
>> > > creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
>> > >
>> > > xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
>> > > it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
>> > > lines, either.
>>
>> > The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
>> > creator.
>>
>> Then why are all "intelligent design" Creationism believers and
>> promoters Fundamentalist Christians? Won't they go to HELLFIRE
>> everlasting for denying the Christian gods?!
>>
>> "Intelligent design" Creationism is a part of Fundamentalist
>> Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam. You cultists had your
>> chance in court, and in the science arena, to demonstrate
>> otherwise and you cultists couldn't do it.
>
>I think the ID lawyers did a dismal job. They went for the whole
>kitten-kabootal instead of cleaned up their claims.
If they had cleaned up their claims, they would have admitted that ID is
not scientific in any sense and that it is legally and morally wrong to
try to teach it in a science class.
Yes, you are right, they should have cleaned up their claims.
Mike L
We are looking for /origins/: you leave us with unexplained aliens
instead of unexplained life on earth. That is not progress. You must
ask yourself how these aliens came into existence. And I fail to see
how you could test your idea: SETI is irrelevant. I'm afraid this
discussion may be too silly to be useful, but not silly enough to be
fun.
--
Mike.
Kermit
I'm not going to argue with you on this one, other than to point out
that they are somewhat more specific than "we hope to find
confirmation of some kind, somewhere."
If you want to look for, say, a binary representation of the Hebrew
scriptures in human DNA, go for it. Just make sure it's
distinguishable from random noise. Let me know how it works out.
I'm not holding my breath for results from SETI, either. Look, SETI
can state their mission as a testable hypothesis, and so can you: "The
first book of the Pentateuch is not encoded in Hebrew in human DNA."
You can even search thoroughly enough to satisfy everyone that it
isn't there. Or that it is, of course, however it turns out. But if
you don't find it, have you disproven ID, or only a very narrow
hypothesis?
>
> Science does not require both a way of proving AND disproving if we
> look at other ideas, such as multiverses, anthropic principle, and
> many others.
Some of the ideas being tossed about in cosmology are not yet theories
- they may not ever be testable. Some ideas eventually become
theories, but it is not always immediately obvious how to test them.
You might call them speculative science, or "pre-theories".
The theory of evolution (actually several closely related theories
covering somewhat different aspects of biological evolution) has
multiple classes of data from different fields of scientific
investigation converging on the same picture. Scientists have tried to
disprove it for over 140 years. It has had to be modified to
accommodate the data.
When is ID going to be disprovable?
How can design be confirmed by others when a "researcher" claims to
have found it?
Why did the DI and others creationist - IDers turn down the Templeton
Foundation's offer of research money?
>
>
>
> > "Testable" means that there is a possibility that the prediction will
> > not come true, at least in principle. Under which circumstances will
> > you admit that failing to find these messages disproves ID? Oh, wait,
> > there's still one *more genome to examine... Besides, this is only a
> > *possible consequence of ID, not a necessary one. Maybe the Designer
> > (wink, wink) left some other clues. Or not.
>
> > Kermit
>
> -T-
Kermit
topmind
That might be true, but explaining original complexity and explaining
how a specific instance got the way it is may be different questions.
It is possible that aliens *did* fiddle with Earth DNA, but that does
not make evolution a non-factor.
Similarly, evolution does not explain how matter and carbon came into
existence. For, those are different questions.
> You must
> ask yourself how these aliens came into existence. And I fail to see
> how you could test your idea: SETI is irrelevant. I'm afraid this
> discussion may be too silly to be useful, but not silly enough to be
> fun.
>
> --
> Mike.
-T-
topmind
SETI cannot falsify the existence of alien Dyson Spheres. But does
this mean that searching for DS's is "not scientific"?
>
> xanthian.
-T-
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
<top...@technologist.com>:
>
>
>Mike L wrote:
SETI is a project to see if we can detect artificial
signals. Since the non-detection of such signals can't and
won't falsify the proposition that intelligent life exists
elsewhere it isn't a scientific hypothesis any more than ID
is.
If we *do* detect artificial signals it will be apparent
that such life exists (or more correctly, "existed") and the
proposition will then be supported by evidence. Please let
the group know what similar evidence would confirm ID.
Bob Casanova
>
>
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:06:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
>> <top...@technologist.com>:
>>
>> >On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> >> Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
>> >> even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
>> >>
>> >> For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
>> >> why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
>> >> creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
>> >>
>> >> xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
>> >> it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
>> >> lines, either.
>> >
>> >
>> >The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
>> >creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
>> >photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
>> >testable.
>>
>> Really? How? What test could be administered, the failure of
>> which would disprove ID?
>
>See nearby SETI comparisons.
Since SETI is in no way a valid test of a scientific
hypothesis (see my other answer in this thread) any
comparison merely agrees that ID is not a scientific
hypothesis; your refusal to provide a test which could
change that status is further confirmation.
>> >Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.
>>
>> Irrelevant. Even if science succeeds in creating life in the
>> lab that says zero about the origin of existing life. Or
>> does the fact that we can create diamonds mean that the
>> Kimberly deposits are the result of "Intelligent Diamond
>> Creation"?
>
>So all forms of ID are only meant to deal with the *original* origin
>of life? Where do you come by this? Perhaps Behe's version does, I
>don't know. But his is not the only form of ID. Personally, I don't
>give a shit about Behe. But I do think some forms of ID are as
>scientific as SETI.
So they are; neither is testable in a scientific sense. Is
that what you meant to convey?
>> >Whether theologians want to bother testing for Zeta Glignok's logo in
>> >DNA is another matter.
>>
>> And if they don't find it (or anything else "constructed"),
>> do you imagine that would refute ID?
>
>
>And if SETI doesn't find signals or Dyson spheres?
Irrelevant. Unless of course you agree that ID is precisely
as valid as a scientific hypothesis as is the SETI project;
IOW, not at all. Is that what you meant?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
>On Jan 15, 3:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:19:05 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>
>> Still waiting for that test. Maybe something off the top of
>> your mind?
>
>Is that my job?
You made the claim. Do you now retract it?
>At what point did SETI suddenly become "science"?
We're talking about ID, not SETI (which also isn't a
testable hypothesis, but that's irrelevant). What test can,
even in principle, falsify ID?
<snip>
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > messages encoded in human DNA, using the .jpg file format, by 2010? If
> > you cannot predict where and under what circumstances they would be
> > found, it is not testable.
>
> How are SETI hypotheses disproved?
Immediately Bryce demonstrates his profound lack of intellectual
integrity. Back in October of 2006 he brought up exactly this same
nonsense. See this thread for just one example:
At that time he received the following response, repeatedly:
{ begin quote }
The hypothesis being tested by the SETI radiotelescope project:
"There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength
being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars."
The empirical observations and scientifically supported assumptions
underlying that hypothesis:
"The hypothetical assumptions that underly the radio search for SETI
are that technological socities will use radio to communicate, as we
do. That they will be able to generate signals of comparable or
greater power than we can. That they will be scanning the heavens with
radio telescopes, as we do. That they will notice that there is a
region of the microwave spectrum which is lower in noise. That
contained within this band is the emission line for hydrogen, the most
common and lightweight element. That at a higher frequency is the
strongest emission line for the OH. That the signals they are likely
to use will be simple narrow band carriers, because they are easier to
detect. That these carriers will likely be Doppler shifted, since
they will originate from planetary bodies rather than stars."
{ end quote }
To come back over a year later as if his points had not been
thoroughly addressed and his arguments soundly refuted demonstrates
pathetic dishonesty. By this and much of the rest of his posting
history on Usenet, Bryce Jacobs is proven to be a particularly
unintelligent troll.
RAM
You still don't understand science. There are different scientific
strategies: applied (e.g. a highly limited model of this type is
SETI), pure (e.g theoretically and empirically well grounded research
that advances our theoretical horizons), exploratory (e.g. often a mix
of applied, pure, and pure speculation [along with possible use of
different methods of data collection and/or analysis]). Science can
be a fairly flexible enterprise but "no" science is based upon pure
speculation e.g. your "photographs and logos hidden in DNA" and
searching for the "existence of alien Dyson Spheres."
Science in short is composed of theories, methods, research
hypotheses, data (that empirical stuff you think is like Jello, i.e.
infinitely moldable) and interpretation strategies (these are
intertwined with the theory, methods, research hypothesis and data
quality). Your "photographs and logos hidden in DNA" and searching
for the "existence of alien Dyson Spheres." is pure crap until it can
be seen as emerging from substantive theoretical concerns or extant
biological or physics research results that suggest these phenomena
exist somewhere other than in a science fiction book.
There is no other way to demonstrate me wrong except by producing the
substantive ID theory that requires the existence of "photographs and
logos hidden in DNA" and or a cosmological equivalent for the
"existence of alien Dyson Spheres." Science has never advanced by
your bizarre approach. Xanthian is astutely correct in his critique
of your malformed conception of how to test ID. It is not that hard
to grasp.
Your protagonist says you are a "troll." I think you are just a rigid
self-important "bone-headed" computer engineer who like creationists
can't believe he is as misinformed as he appears. Either way ID will
never advance with or with-out your help.
RAM
topmind
I disagree with that interpretation of "science", but I do respect
that viewpoint and can see you are applying it even-handed here.
>
> If we *do* detect artificial signals it will be apparent
> that such life exists (or more correctly, "existed") and the
> proposition will then be supported by evidence. Please let
> the group know what similar evidence would confirm ID.
Some say that the nature of the signal alone, narrow bandwidth, is
enough to "prove" ET. However, if it turns into interpreting the
*content* of the signal, then it is in the same boat as finding
patterns in DNA, namely "content interpretation". (SETI has multiple
programs and/or plans such that the nature of their work is more
involved than mere signal finding.)
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
-T-
topmind
Prime numbers have been suggested. One can calculate the probability
of finding a given length of primes per DNA "digits" searched, and see
how far above that the candidate primes are. For example, a long prime
may be calculated as being a 1 in 20 chance of happening by expected
chance. If such was found, then deeper searches would be taken up.
> Kermit
-T-
topmind
can see, and other childish web intimidation techniques, abusing the
internet.
topmind
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:36:57 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
> <top...@technologist.com>:
>
> >On Jan 15, 3:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:19:05 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
> >>
> >> Still waiting for that test. Maybe something off the top of
> >> your mind?
> >
> >Is that my job?
>
> You made the claim. Do you now retract it?
I just claimed it was testable, not tested.
>
> >At what point did SETI suddenly become "science"?
>
> We're talking about ID, not SETI (which also isn't a
> testable hypothesis, but that's irrelevant). What test can,
> even in principle, falsify ID?
If SETI's premise is not falsifiable, then perhaps ID is not either
for similar reasons. But a lot of proposals are true-ifable even
though they aren't falsifiable, such as multiverses. Demanding both
is too tight a restriction on traditional science.
In fact, evolution is probably not 100% falsifiable either unless you
put a camera on every atom for 5 billion years strait. Nobody can
prove that evo never happened everywhere and thus it is not 100%
falsifiable.
But things like SETI and DNA sifting can reduce the upper limits on
how common aliens or messages are. Thus, it does have some
falsifiability power despite not being absolute.
>
> <snip>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
Back to the Bryce Jacobs cargo cult non-hypothesis, from over a year
ago:
"There are no known sequential prime digits (as defined by encoding
algorithm X) longer than length Y in the DNA of earth species."
The empirical observations and scientifically supported assumptions
underlying this non-hypothesis: { null set }
Still quite a difference from SETI. Still dishonest on your part to
pretend that this hasn't been pointed out to you repeatedly.
To save some time, here are the questions you failed to answer last
time around:
As repeatedly explained to you, a scientific hypothesis must explain
empirical o
bservations, must be based on empirical evidence and logical,
scientifically sup
ported assumptions, and must make specific, testable predictions the
failure of
which would serve to falsify it.
Your cargo cult hypothesis does not meet these criteria. Just off the
top of my
head:
- What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis? Note that
analogies are not evidence, particularly when they fail to take into
consideration essential characteristics of one of the entities being
compared.
- On what assumptions does your hypothesis depend?
- What is the scientific and logical basis for each of those
assumptions? Note that any additional assumptions required must also
be scientifically and logically supported. For example, interstellar
travel is not automatically plausible.
- What is algorithm X? How exactly does it derive from the empirical
observations and grounded assumptions underlying your hypothesis?
- What is length Y? Why Y, exactly, rather than Y-1 or Y*57?
- What predictions derive directly from your hypothesis?
- How can those predictions be tested?
- How would a failure of any of those predictions falsify your
hypothesis?
Unless and until you answer these questions, with enough precision to
allow others to understand your reasoning and reproduce your
experiments, your speculations remain untestable and non-scientific.
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
It does not, however, run away with its tail between its legs, only to
return over a year later pretending it didn't get soundly trounced the
last time it spouted the same nonsense.
Answer the questions or admit you're incapable of doing so. Show some
intellectual honesty. If you do, I'll give you the password to this
gmail account.
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > >At what point did SETI suddenly become "science"?
>
> > We're talking about ID, not SETI (which also isn't a
> > testable hypothesis, but that's irrelevant). What test can,
> > even in principle, falsify ID?
>
> If SETI's premise is not falsifiable, then perhaps ID is not either
> for similar reasons. But a lot of proposals are true-ifable even
> though they aren't falsifiable, such as multiverses. Demanding both
> is too tight a restriction on traditional science.
More blasts of nonsense from the past. Your ignorance of science, as
demonstrated by the term "truifiable", among many other statements on
your part, was demonstrated in this thread and others easily found
with Google:
Hiding for over a year doesn't change the fact that you know nothing
about the philosophy of science or the scientific method.
> In fact, evolution is probably not 100% falsifiable either unless you
> put a camera on every atom for 5 billion years strait. Nobody can
> prove that evo never happened everywhere and thus it is not 100%
> falsifiable.
This was also addressed, repeatedly. See here for one example:
Falsifiability is binary. The famous "rabbit in the pre-Cambrian"
would falsify much of modern evolutionary theory. The Bryce Jacobs
DNA-ID non-hypothesis that "Some being or beings may have manipulated
some genome or genomes on Earth at some point in time in the recent or
deep past and may have left some unknown pattern encoded in some
unknown fashion using some unknown technique for some unknown
purpose. Maybe." is not testable. No conceivable empirical
observation could possibly falsify it.
If you insist on being willfully ignorant about science, you should at
least have the common sense (and common decency) to remain silent on
the subject. Instead you continue to demonstrate your lack of
intelligence and utter disdain for honesty by reposting already
solidly refuted nonsense. You are a troll.
Martin Hutton
Weren't these hypotheses soundly disproved last year?
IIRC someone (who?) wrote algorithms searching for various
patterns in the published human genome sequence. These included
prime numbers and image frames. He also demonstrated that
coded image frames stand out in DNA sequences regardless of
encoding details.
Why are you representing these failed hypotheses...some of
us may be old but we're not totally Reaganesque.
josephus
topmind? why would we ignore such a stupid fellow as topmind. he must
have tenure because with tenure you dont have to publish or perish.
too bad topmind and his magic black holes that get too close to the
black hole and escape. too bad topmind did not publish this stuff and
get perished.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, only on differt subjects"
Will Rogers
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
Mark VandeWettering
We could cut out the middle man, and simply ignore you instead.
Mark
Earle Jones
<6ea14c96-80d6-4cc2...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:06:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
> > <top...@technologist.com>:
> >
> > >On Jan 12, 4:59 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > >> Creationists should long ago have gotten the hint when
> > >> even the web comic artists are laughing at them.
> > >>
> > >> For example, this is a very cogent explanation of
> > >> why in science, "theory" != "guesswork", a fact the
> > >> creationists just can't seem to get clear in their heads.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/1329.htm
> > >>
> > >> xanthian. I'm betting they can't catch the clue when
> > >> it's drawn out for them and colored neatly inside the
> > >> lines, either.
> > >
> > >
> > >The cartoon is misleading. ID by itself does not assume a supernatural
> > >creator. One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by finding say
> > >photographs and logos hidden in DNA. Thus, ID, as written, *is*
> > >testable.
> >
> > Really? How? What test could be administered, the failure of
> > which would disprove ID?
>
> See nearby SETI comparisons.
>
> >
> > >Monsanto Inc. is an Intelligent Designer of sorts even.
> >
> > Irrelevant. Even if science succeeds in creating life in the
> > lab that says zero about the origin of existing life. Or
> > does the fact that we can create diamonds mean that the
> > Kimberly deposits are the result of "Intelligent Diamond
> > Creation"?
>
> So all forms of ID are only meant to deal with the *original* origin
> of life? Where do you come by this? Perhaps Behe's version does, I
> don't know. But his is not the only form of ID. Personally, I don't
> give a shit about Behe. But I do think some forms of ID are as
> scientific as SETI.
*
I don't.
Think of SETI in terms of the null hypothesis:
"There exists no intelligent beings outside the terrestrial domain."
This hypothesis is clearly falsifiable. All one must do is to identify
one single instance of extraterrestrial intelligence. Which, BTW, is
exactly what SETI is all about.
Is it possible to understand the ID hypothesis this way? Can you
formulate a falsifiable null hypothesis?
earle
*
Earle Jones
<f2ac9543-d801-447f...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:19:05 -0700, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
> >
> > Still waiting for that test. Maybe something off the top of
> > your mind?
>
> Is that my job?
>
> At what point did SETI suddenly become "science"? It gradually
> proceeded from a back-of-the-napkin idea into formal listening tests.
> When and what is the stage that switched it from non-science to
> science?
>
> (I don't think science is a Boolean concept, but some treat it as if
> it is.)
*
I suspect you mean 'binary' concept: That is, characterized by one or
zero; yes or no. Is that right?
I wonder whether you understand SETI at all. You refer to SETI as
beginning as a "back-of-the-napkin" idea.
SETI was originally proposed by one of its founders (Dr. Bernard Oliver,
Senior VP for R&D at Hewlett-Packard) based on financial reasons. He
did a comparison of extra-solar space exploration by manned space
platforms with earth-based listening devices.
You should read his paper "Galactic Colonization and Other Flights of
Fancy", which is written for the lay reader. It shows the relative
costs of the two approaches.
I can give you a brief summary if you are interested.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<0b3b9325-b529-4e1f...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
*
Interesting spelling, "kitten-kabootal".
Try "kit and kaboodle".
For the origin, see: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-who2.htm
earle
*
Earle Jones
<f16f2f06-fca4-40cb...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Mike L <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 8:23 am, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > Mike L wrote:
*
The question, it seems to me, is this: If there are any intelligent
being(s) outside the terrestrial domain, is it something we should know
about? Is it worth spending some money finding out?
As an explorer/researcher with a high level of scientific curiosity
about the universe, I would answer 'yes' to both. I would pay some
taxes to fund research into finding the answer.
But many people would not. Either they lack the curiosity, or they see
no practical payoff in knowing, or they already "know".
SETI was chosen as the lowest cost approach to answering the question.
earle
*
Earle Jones
<f16f2f06-fca4-40cb...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Mike L <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 8:23 am, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > Mike L wrote:
*
My second response to the above:
If you believe that SETI is looking for origins, then you are right --
SETI is irrelevant. But SETI has nothing to do with origins. It is a
[S]earch for [E]xtra[T]errestrial [I]ntelligence.
If it happens to add to our knowledge about origins, that is fine. If
it adds to our knowledge about new places to outsource computer
programming, that is fine too.
earle
*
earle
*
Bob Casanova
Well, the requirement that any hypothesis be falsifiable is
sort of a cornerstone of science, but you're free to use
some other criterion. Just don't call it "science", since
that would be a bit confusing.
>, but I do respect
>that viewpoint and can see you are applying it even-handed here.
Well, yes; applying the same rules to all is another
cornerstone of science.
>> If we *do* detect artificial signals it will be apparent
>> that such life exists (or more correctly, "existed") and the
>> proposition will then be supported by evidence. Please let
>> the group know what similar evidence would confirm ID.
>
>Some say that the nature of the signal alone, narrow bandwidth, is
>enough to "prove" ET. However, if it turns into interpreting the
>*content* of the signal, then it is in the same boat as finding
>patterns in DNA, namely "content interpretation". (SETI has multiple
>programs and/or plans such that the nature of their work is more
>involved than mere signal finding.)
Artificial signals could, as you say, have characteristics
different from any known natural ones. If a signal *not*
having these characteristics is considered for
artificiality, and it's determined that it's likely to be
artificial based on content (a binary string of the first
100 primes, for instance, something unlikely to be the
product of any natural process), that would be good
evidence, but it would need to be unambiguous. What similar
DNA content would lead to a similar conclusion?
And note that none of this makes either one any sort of
scientific hypothesis, since the non-falsifiability problem
still exists - if it can only be confirmed, but can't be
refuted, it's not science.
Ritsjoena
> In article
> <f2ac9543-d801-447f-9069-b4684bc6c...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> You should read his paper "Galactic Colonization and Other Flights of
> Fancy", which is written for the lay reader. It shows the relative
> costs of the two approaches.
>
> I can give you a brief summary if you are interested.
Do you have a link?
>
> earle
> *
Bob Casanova
>
>
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:36:57 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
>> <top...@technologist.com>:
>>
>> >On Jan 15, 3:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:19:05 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>> >>
>> >> Still waiting for that test. Maybe something off the top of
>> >> your mind?
>> >
>> >Is that my job?
>>
>> You made the claim. Do you now retract it?
>
>I just claimed it was testable, not tested.
And I didn't say you claimed it was tested; I asked you what
test *could* falsify it.
>> >At what point did SETI suddenly become "science"?
>>
>> We're talking about ID, not SETI (which also isn't a
>> testable hypothesis, but that's irrelevant). What test can,
>> even in principle, falsify ID?
>
>If SETI's premise is not falsifiable, then perhaps ID is not either
>for similar reasons.
It isn't.
>But a lot of proposals are true-ifable even
>though they aren't falsifiable, such as multiverses.
That's why such propositions get intense work before they
get to the "test it" stage (except mathematically, but
that's a different issue); the hypotheses need to be
formulated in such a way that they *are* testable.
> Demanding both
>is too tight a restriction on traditional science.
Take it up with the Elite Science Advisory Deacons.
>In fact, evolution is probably not 100% falsifiable either unless you
>put a camera on every atom for 5 billion years strait. Nobody can
>prove that evo never happened everywhere and thus it is not 100%
>falsifiable.
You don't understand falsifiability. It doesn't require that
every event be recorded; it requires that predictions it
makes be capable of refutation. So far, those made by
evolutionary theory have been so capable, and they have
*not* been refuted.
>But things like SETI and DNA sifting can reduce the upper limits on
>how common aliens or messages are. Thus, it does have some
>falsifiability power despite not being absolute.
Nope, since the limits selected are arbitrary. Since we know
essentially zero about the presence and capabilities of any
putative extrasolar intelligent life *any* limits we set are
arbitrary, and no hypothesis formed using them is
falsifiable in a scientific sense.
Kent Paul Dolan
> SETI cannot falsify the existence of alien Dyson
> Spheres. But does this mean that searching for
> DS's is "not scientific"?
But you are of course exercising evasionist mumbo
jumbo, an exercise indicating that you are in utmost
confusion about how science works (no surprise to
anyone, given your record and reputation).
SETI has _made_ no claim that Dyson Spheres exist,
so SETI is under no obligation to provide a mathod
by which peer researchers can falsify such a claim
(for example, by sending a round trip robot to the
putative Dyson Sphere location for an up close
attempt to debunk its nature, a perfectly feasible,
if slow, falsification technique).
In contrast, ID proponents roundly and frequently
_do_ claim that "foo" is evidence for intelligent
design, for several different values of "foo", but
provide no method by which they will agree that
their claims for "foo" might be falsified.
Example of "foo": Michael Behe's "irreducible
complexity" scam, already long ago debunked by sane
scientists despite that Behe himself refused to
prove any method by which his claim might be
falsified.
The more generic form of "foo", though, is some even
less coherent argument by incredulity than Behe's
"irreducible complexity" scam, such as the argument
that random variation plus systematic selection is
_incapable_ of creating complexity in the form of
improved fitness, an argument debunked daily by
evolutionary software practitioners who use their
software to do precisely that.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Xanthian is astutely correct in his critique
> of your malformed conception of how to test ID.
Thanks for that, I rarely score such praise as
"astutely correct" even when it is appropriate.
To make the punishment fit the crime, your comments
have been captured for posterity somewhere in my
random-sometimes siggie script:
http://www.well.com/user/xanthian/bin/incl
which eventually would spew them out formatted
thusly:
===== selected archival quality quote by, =====
===== about, or appropriate to, this author =====
Science has never advanced by your
bizarre approach.
Xanthian is astutely correct in his critique of
your malformed conception of how to test ID.
It is not that hard to grasp.
-- RAM <RAMat...@gmail.com>
--
Kent Paul Dolan.
<xant...@well.com>
http://www.well.com/user/xanthian/
Kent Paul Dolan
>> Ignore the above person. It plays games with
>> email addresses, as you can see, and other
>> childish web intimidation techniques, abusing the
>> internet.
> We could cut out the middle man, and simply ignore
> you instead.
An accomplishment devoutly to be desired.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Example of "foo": Michael Behe's "irreducible
> complexity" scam, already long ago debunked by sane
> scientists despite that Behe himself refused to
> prove any method by which his claim might be
> falsified.
Gak! s/prove/provide/
xanthian.
topmind
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>
> > Ignore the above person. It plays games with email addresses, as you
> > can see, and other childish web intimidation techniques, abusing the
> > internet.
>
> We could cut out the middle man, and simply ignore you instead.
Please do. I won't miss you.
>
> Mark
-T-
topmind
I don't know of anybody rational claiming it is absolutely not
possible to sift DNA for potentially artificial patterns. Yes, it may
be difficult to form conclusive evidence based on such patterns alone,
but it may point to other places to search rather than be the final
answer. Exploration makes no guarantees.
>
> > Demanding both
> >is too tight a restriction on traditional science.
>
> Take it up with the Elite Science Advisory Deacons.
It's been easier to find God than the ESAD.
>
> >In fact, evolution is probably not 100% falsifiable either unless you
> >put a camera on every atom for 5 billion years strait. Nobody can
> >prove that evo never happened everywhere and thus it is not 100%
> >falsifiable.
>
> You don't understand falsifiability. It doesn't require that
> every event be recorded; it requires that predictions it
> makes be capable of refutation. So far, those made by
> evolutionary theory have been so capable, and they have
> *not* been refuted.
I don't disagree. But note that not all forms of ID conflict with
evolution. The Catholic church even seems to be embracing a watered-
down version of ID that does not dismiss evo as a significant force in
shaping life. They merge both: intelligent fiddling if you will.
>
> >But things like SETI and DNA sifting can reduce the upper limits on
> >how common aliens or messages are. Thus, it does have some
> >falsifiability power despite not being absolute.
>
> Nope, since the limits selected are arbitrary. Since we know
> essentially zero about the presence and capabilities of any
> putative extrasolar intelligent life *any* limits we set are
> arbitrary, and no hypothesis formed using them is
> falsifiable in a scientific sense.
Wouldn't that apply to SETI looking for Dyson Spheres? They do assume
that they may use technology similar to our technology (or at least
future plans), but so can DNA pattern finders. In other words, "If ET
does things like we would do it, then their work might resemble such
and such." It is searching for the lower-hanging fruit: stuff we
recognize based on human behavior. You seem to be demanding a perfect
search of all possible ET configurations.
Aliens may have soap operas also.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
-T-
topmind
I've asked for a clear-cut definition of "science", but never received
one with any kind of consensus or not tied to hidden votes. There are
scientific, or at least science-influenced, proposals that may not be
falsified, only true-ified, such as SETI's search hypoths and multiple
universes.
>
> >, but I do respect
> >that viewpoint and can see you are applying it even-handed here.
>
> Well, yes; applying the same rules to all is another
> cornerstone of science.
>
> >> If we *do* detect artificial signals it will be apparent
> >> that such life exists (or more correctly, "existed") and the
> >> proposition will then be supported by evidence. Please let
> >> the group know what similar evidence would confirm ID.
> >
> >Some say that the nature of the signal alone, narrow bandwidth, is
> >enough to "prove" ET. However, if it turns into interpreting the
> >*content* of the signal, then it is in the same boat as finding
> >patterns in DNA, namely "content interpretation". (SETI has multiple
> >programs and/or plans such that the nature of their work is more
> >involved than mere signal finding.)
>
> Artificial signals could, as you say, have characteristics
> different from any known natural ones. If a signal *not*
> having these characteristics is considered for
> artificiality, and it's determined that it's likely to be
> artificial based on content (a binary string of the first
> 100 primes, for instance, something unlikely to be the
> product of any natural process), that would be good
> evidence, but it would need to be unambiguous. What similar
> DNA content would lead to a similar conclusion?
It would need to be unambiguous only for a final conclusion. Many
questions don't necessarily have a known final conclusion. For
example, we may never know the most fundamental particle of physics
because we cannot disprove that what we do know about is not composed
of yet smaller components. We may never know why the Cambrian
Explosion appears relatively suddenly. The evidence may be long-gone
cooked away in the hot mantel.
>
> And note that none of this makes either one any sort of
> scientific hypothesis, since the non-falsifiability problem
> still exists - if it can only be confirmed, but can't be
> refuted, it's not science.
Well, I disagree. It only needs one or the other (true-ifiable or
falsifiable). This is based on past toleration of proposals lacking
one or the other. Something is "testable" if there exists ways to
either boost *or* reduce its credibility by observation. "And" is not
required.
We may be able to detect another universe, for example; but if we
don't, that does not absolutely falsify it.
I would agree to a title such as "speculative science" to distinguish
it from something testable in both directions.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
-T-
topmind
RAM wrote:
> On Jan 21, 6:28�pm, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 1:24 am, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > > > One can test say aliens tinkering with ID by
> > > > finding say photographs and logos hidden in DNA.
> >
> > > Well, no, since falsifying ID without proponents of
> > > ID providing an agreed method of falsification,
> > > currently requires a proof that _no evidence_ of
> > > intelligent design exists in genotypes or
> > > phenotypes, a task impossible even in concept (the
> > > testers would among other things be required to
> > > disassemble themselves entirely, in order to perform
> > > such a test) _even though_ every such test made
> > > finds no such evidence, not that no "photographs or
> > > logos" are hidden in DNA.
> >
> > > > Thus, ID, as written, *is* testable.
> >
> > > Well, no, since "signed works of art" are no part of
> > > the claim of ID, thus tests to confirm or deny that
> > > DNA contains signed works of art have no
> > > applicability to falsifying ID.
> >
> > SETI cannot falsify the existence of alien Dyson Spheres. But does
> > this mean that searching for DS's is "not scientific"?
> >
> >
> >
> > > xanthian.
> >
> > -T-
>
> You still don't understand science. There are different scientific
> strategies: applied (e.g. a highly limited model of this type is
> SETI), pure (e.g theoretically and empirically well grounded research
> that advances our theoretical horizons), exploratory (e.g. often a mix
> of applied, pure, and pure speculation [along with possible use of
> different methods of data collection and/or analysis]). Science can
> be a fairly flexible enterprise but "no" science is based upon pure
> speculation e.g. your "photographs and logos hidden in DNA" and
> searching for the "existence of alien Dyson Spheres."
So you are claiming that any plans by SETI or similar organizations to
search other stars for Dyson Spheres or similar structures is "non-
scientific". Is that correct?
>
> Science in short is composed of theories, methods, research
> hypotheses, data (that empirical stuff you think is like Jello, i.e.
> infinitely moldable) and interpretation strategies (these are
> intertwined with the theory, methods, research hypothesis and data
> quality). Your "photographs and logos hidden in DNA" and searching
> for the "existence of alien Dyson Spheres." is pure crap until it can
> be seen as emerging from substantive theoretical concerns or extant
> biological or physics research results that suggest these phenomena
> exist somewhere other than in a science fiction book.
Music has been put into bacteria DNA as a lab test. It is no longer
"science fiction". The hairless ape has done it.
>
> There is no other way to demonstrate me wrong except by producing the
> substantive ID theory that requires the existence of "photographs and
> logos hidden in DNA" and or a cosmological equivalent for the
> "existence of alien Dyson Spheres." Science has never advanced by
> your bizarre approach. Xanthian is astutely correct in his critique
> of your malformed conception of how to test ID. It is not that hard
> to grasp.
>
> Your protagonist says you are a "troll." I think you are just a rigid
> self-important "bone-headed" computer engineer who like creationists
> can't believe he is as misinformed as he appears. Either way ID will
> never advance with or with-out your help.
Odd, that's how I would describe you if I spelled out my internal
feelings about what I think of you. If somebody really wanted to
impress me with their intellect here, they would produce a rock-solid
definition of science backed by many supporters and years of testing
against actual cases, and then apply that definition in a clean,
precise lawyer-like way such that there are no alternative
interpretation paths. Instead I get personal opinions dressed up in
the false clothing of The Scientific Supreme Court. You are dictating,
not demonstrating. Personal opinions are like aholes: everybody has
one. Tying those opinions to something real and solid is the hard
part. If you don't want to do the hard work of presenting your case
properly, don't dump your frustration on me via anecdotal shortcuts of
personal insults.
I tried to make an effort to keep the insults and personal nits at
bay, but you fired first, as the record shows. I don't turn the other
cheek like the Jesus dude does.
>
> RAM
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
>
> > Well, the requirement that any hypothesis be falsifiable is
> > sort of a cornerstone of science, but you're free to use
> > some other criterion. Just don't call it "science", since
> > that would be a bit confusing.
>
> I've asked for a clear-cut definition of "science", but never received
> one with any kind of consensus or not tied to hidden votes.
That is a lie. Zachriel provided a reasonable definition in the
thread containing this message:
and even provided a link to a detailed explanation of the scientific
method:
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Mark VandeWettering and others participated in that conversation, all
attempting to clarify the topic for you and all in agreement with
Zachriel and all including the concept of falsifiability.
> There are
> scientific, or at least science-influenced, proposals that may not be
> falsified, only true-ified, such as SETI's search hypoths and multiple
> universes.
As repeatedly explained to you the last time you infested this
newsgroup, "true-ified" is a nonsensical term of your own invention
and the ability to generate falsifiable predictions is a hallmark of a
scientific theory.
The only confusion here is on your part. If it's genuine, you're a
fool. If it's not, you're dishonest. Since you've already been
proven to be both, more detail does not add to the sum total of human
knowledge. It's rather like the Bryce Jacobs DNA-ID non-hypothesis in
that way.
> > And note that none of this makes either one any sort of
> > scientific hypothesis, since the non-falsifiability problem
> > still exists - if it can only be confirmed, but can't be
> > refuted, it's not science.
>
> Well, I disagree. It only needs one or the other (true-ifiable or
> falsifiable).
Absolutely wrong, as demonstrate repeatedly in your last infestation.
> We may be able to detect another universe, for example; but if we
> don't, that does not absolutely falsify it.
Observations cannot be falsified, only scientific theories can. If a
theory cannot be falsified even in principle, it is not a scientific
theory.
> I would agree to a title such as "speculative science" to distinguish
> it from something testable in both directions.
Inventing terms to cover already well-defined concepts gets you more
points on the crackpot index.
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> RAM wrote:
> > You still don't understand science. There are different scientific
> > strategies: applied (e.g. a highly limited model of this type is
> > SETI), pure (e.g theoretically and empirically well grounded research
> > that advances our theoretical horizons), exploratory (e.g. often a mix
> > of applied, pure, and pure speculation [along with possible use of
> > different methods of data collection and/or analysis]). Science can
> > be a fairly flexible enterprise but "no" science is based upon pure
> > speculation e.g. your "photographs and logos hidden in DNA" and
> > searching for the "existence of alien Dyson Spheres."
>
> So you are claiming that any plans by SETI or similar organizations to
> search other stars for Dyson Spheres or similar structures is "non-
> scientific". Is that correct?
I'd suggest that you re-read for comprehension, but past experience
has demonstrated that you are incapable of doing so.
The hypothesis being tested by the SETI radiotelescope project is the
null hypothesis, namely:
"There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength
being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars."
This is constructed in such a way as to be falsifiable and hence a
scientific theory. It is also based on empirical observations and
scientifically supported assumptions, as repeatedly described to you.
It is likely that any search for Dyson Spheres or similar constructs
will test a similar null hypothesis related to the detection of
particular infrared signatures from stars within the region that can
be examined by the available technology. This will result in a
predictive, falsifiable, and therefore scientific theory.
> > Science in short is composed of theories, methods, research
> > hypotheses, data (that empirical stuff you think is like Jello, i.e.
> > infinitely moldable) and interpretation strategies (these are
> > intertwined with the theory, methods, research hypothesis and data
> > quality). Your "photographs and logos hidden in DNA" and searching
> > for the "existence of alien Dyson Spheres." is pure crap until it can
> > be seen as emerging from substantive theoretical concerns or extant
> > biological or physics research results that suggest these phenomena
> > exist somewhere other than in a science fiction book.
>
> Music has been put into bacteria DNA as a lab test. It is no longer
> "science fiction". The hairless ape has done it.
Neither this nor the SETI red herring discussion add anything to the
predictive value or falsifiability of the Bryce Jacobs cargo cult non-
hypothesis, from over a year ago:
"There are no known sequential prime digits (as defined by encoding
algorithm X) longer than length Y in the DNA of earth species."
The empirical observations and scientifically supported assumptions
underlying this non-hypothesis are still the null set.
Produce a testable scientific hypothesis or admit that you are
incapable of doing so.
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> bay
Showing up over a year later with the same nonsense that was soundly
refuted the last time you spouted it and expecting the other
participants in the newsgroup not to recognize that grossly dishonest
behavior is quite insulting.
RAM
>
>
> > Science in short is composed of theories, methods, research
> > hypotheses, data (that empirical stuff you think is like Jello, i.e.
> > infinitely moldable) and interpretation strategies (these are
> > intertwined with the theory, methods, research hypothesis and data
> > quality). Your "photographs and logos hidden in DNA" and searching
> > for the "existence of alien Dyson Spheres." is pure crap until it can
> > be seen as emerging from substantive theoretical concerns or extant
> > biological or physics research results that suggest these phenomena
> > exist somewhere other than in a science fiction book.
>
> Music has been put into bacteria DNA as a lab test. It is no longer
> "science fiction". The hairless ape has done it.
>
suggests that we thus must look for this effect to see if aliens did
it. Should we also look for the aliens who do GM.
>
>
> > There is no other way to demonstrate me wrong except by producing the
> > substantive ID theory that requires the existence of "photographs and
> > logos hidden in DNA" and or a cosmological equivalent for the
> > "existence of alien Dyson Spheres." Science has never advanced by
> > your bizarre approach. Xanthian is astutely correct in his critique
> > of your malformed conception of how to test ID. It is not that hard
> > to grasp.
>
> > Your protagonist says you are a "troll." I think you are just a rigid
> > self-important "bone-headed" computer engineer who like creationists
> > can't believe he is as misinformed as he appears. Either way ID will
> > never advance with or with-out your help.
>
> Odd, that's how I would describe you if I spelled out my internal
> feelings about what I think of you.
What you think of me is orthogonal to understanding science and
besides I have only occasional misunderstandings of science whereas
yours seems congenital.
If somebody really wanted to
> impress me with their intellect here, they would produce a rock-solid
> definition of science backed by many supporters and years of testing
> against actual cases, and then apply that definition in a clean,
> precise lawyer-like way such that there are no alternative
> interpretation paths.
This just reveals you don't understand science. This is what people
have been trying to explain to you. What you want doesn't exist and
never will. Your visions of how science is to make you happy are also
orthogonal to the history of scientific success.
Instead I get personal opinions dressed up in
> the false clothing of The Scientific Supreme Court.
Not personal opinions but reflections on science from years of study
of varied disciplines. Sorry it doesn't meet your personal
requirements, but again you have an anal retentive , rigid
understanding of how science is supposed to be.
You are dictating,
> not demonstrating.
No just letting you know that there are certain prerequisites for
science that must be met to be considered scientific. You know things
like: problematic hypotheses from a "normative" theory that can be
falsified, reliable and valid empirical measures of phenomena to be
studied, and be replicable. There are other criteria that may come
into play, such as those surrounding "non-normative theories, like the
presumed "ID theory" These generally require far greater theoretical
elaboration. Greater consideration to methodological issues of
measurement, research design and data quality.
Personal opinions are like aholes: everybody has
> one. Tying those opinions to something real and solid is the hard
> part. If you don't want to do the hard work of presenting your case
> properly, don't dump your frustration on me via anecdotal shortcuts of
> personal insults.
Being realistic can be insulting, but that's life.
>
> I tried to make an effort to keep the insults and personal nits at
> bay, but you fired first, as the record shows. I don't turn the other
> cheek like the Jesus dude does.
>
Pointing out your errors and the idiocy of your requirements may be
insulting, but the volume of posting shows you have learned zilch and
thus it is rational to observe: "you are just a rigid self-important
"bone-headed" computer engineer who like creationists can't believe he
is as misinformed as he appears." and that "Either way ID will never
advance with or with-out your help."
If you understood science we would not have this conversation.
RAM
>
>
> > RAM
>
> -T-
topmind
RAM wrote:
You are being contradictory here. Clarity and precision does not
exist, you suggest, YET you know precisely why I have science all
wrong. You are using feelings and vague personal notions. Sorry, but
those don't count.
> Your visions of how science is to make you happy are also
> orthogonal to the history of scientific success.
I've read about science history many times, it does not contradict
anything I've said.
>
> Instead I get personal opinions dressed up in
> > the false clothing of The Scientific Supreme Court.
>
> Not personal opinions but reflections on science from years of study
> of varied disciplines. Sorry it doesn't meet your personal
> requirements, but again you have an anal retentive , rigid
> understanding of how science is supposed to be.
I believe "science" to be continuous, not Boolean. So how does that
make me rigid? You are the one puking out your self-certainty here as
strong as any Bible thumper I've ever met.
>
> You are dictating,
> > not demonstrating.
>
> No just letting you know that there are certain prerequisites for
> science that must be met to be considered scientific.
> You know things
> like: problematic hypotheses from a "normative" theory that can be
> falsified, reliable and valid empirical measures of phenomena to be
> studied, and be replicable.
Replicable removes a lot of theories and fields, including cosmology,
because the big bang is not likely to happen again anytime soon. Same
with the Cambrian Explosion.
As far as I can tell, you are making it up as you go.
These features may boost a scientific idea's standing, I will agree.
But you are implying there is a Boolean test, but not describing it.
> There are other criteria that may come
> into play, such as those surrounding "non-normative theories, like the
> presumed "ID theory" These generally require far greater theoretical
> elaboration. Greater consideration to methodological issues of
> measurement, research design and data quality.
>
> Personal opinions are like aholes: everybody has
> > one. Tying those opinions to something real and solid is the hard
> > part. If you don't want to do the hard work of presenting your case
> > properly, don't dump your frustration on me via anecdotal shortcuts of
> > personal insults.
>
> Being realistic can be insulting, but that's life.
A true diplomatic does not have to insult to make point. Insults are
for amateurs and the agitated. Your excuse to produce insults is
frankly poor. Even if I was wrong and dumb and stupid and arrogant
and all the other labels you tossed at me, calling me names would not
make me change. When was the last time you saw insults changing
ANYBODY? You change people's opinions by gaining their trust and then
being very specific and detailed in your criticism.
> >
> > I tried to make an effort to keep the insults and personal nits at
> > bay, but you fired first, as the record shows. I don't turn the other
> > cheek like the Jesus dude does.
> >
> Pointing out your errors and the idiocy of your requirements may be
> insulting, but the volume of posting shows you have learned zilch and
> thus it is rational to observe: "you are just a rigid self-important
> "bone-headed" computer engineer who like creationists can't believe he
> is as misinformed as he appears." and that "Either way ID will never
> advance with or with-out your help."
The feeling is mutual.
>
> If you understood science we would not have this conversation.
If you could convert your vague-but-strong feeling into solid words,
we would not have to have this conversation.
And, you are a rude person, to boot.
>
> RAM
-T-
topmind
> topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > SETI cannot falsify the existence of alien Dyson
> > Spheres. But does this mean that searching for
> > DS's is "not scientific"?
>
> But you are of course exercising evasionist mumbo
> jumbo, an exercise indicating that you are in utmost
> confusion about how science works (no surprise to
> anyone, given your record and reputation).
>
> SETI has _made_ no claim that Dyson Spheres exist,
> so SETI is under no obligation to provide a mathod
> by which peer researchers can falsify such a claim
> (for example, by sending a round trip robot to the
> putative Dyson Sphere location for an up close
> attempt to debunk its nature, a perfectly feasible,
> if slow, falsification technique).
May I ask how would you classify their tentative plans to do such
searches?
>
> In contrast, ID proponents roundly and frequently
> _do_ claim that "foo" is evidence for intelligent
> design, for several different values of "foo", but
> provide no method by which they will agree that
> their claims for "foo" might be falsified.
>
> Example of "foo": Michael Behe's "irreducible
> complexity" scam, already long ago debunked by sane
> scientists despite that Behe himself refused to
> prove any method by which his claim might be
> falsified.
>
> The more generic form of "foo", though, is some even
> less coherent argument by incredulity than Behe's
> "irreducible complexity" scam, such as the argument
> that random variation plus systematic selection is
> _incapable_ of creating complexity in the form of
> improved fitness, an argument debunked daily by
> evolutionary software practitioners who use their
> software to do precisely that.
>
> xanthian.
I don't really care what Behe thinks. If we need to divide Behe's
brand of ID from other possible ID's, then so be it.
-T-
topmind
There are no intelligent-designed artifacts in DNA.
>
> earle
> *
-T-
Bob Casanova
Your conspiracy theory is somewhat bizarre. Don't you own a
dictionary? From the AHD:
"sci·ence (sº“…ns) n. Abbr. sc., sci. 1.a. The observation,
identification, description, experimental investigation, and
theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities
restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such
activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got
packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that
appears to require study and method: the science of
purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through
experience."
Is Wikipedia blocked from all computers to which you have
access? Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
You're welcome.
> There are
>scientific, or at least science-influenced, proposals that may not be
>falsified, only true-ified, such as SETI's search hypoths and multiple
>universes.
Until/unless a proposition makes testable and falsifiable
predictions (IOW, can be formed as a hypothesis) it's not
science. SETI researchers possibly *could* formulate such a
hypothesis; cosmology researchers almost certainly could do
so, unless the proposition has *no* effect on anything which
can be measured. And if that's the case it never will be
even a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory.
Direct evidence isn't required, only falsifiable
predictions. Your statement implies that you think science
has some sort of "true/false" ranking for hypotheses and
theories. It doesn't; *all* theories are tentative. Until a
tested hypothesis makes predictions which fail of
confirmation it's accepted, but *only* until such time.
>> And note that none of this makes either one any sort of
>> scientific hypothesis, since the non-falsifiability problem
>> still exists - if it can only be confirmed, but can't be
>> refuted, it's not science.
>
>Well, I disagree. It only needs one or the other (true-ifiable or
>falsifiable).
Science requires falsifiability. As I stated before, you're
perfectly welcome to use a different requirement, but it
isn't science.
> This is based on past toleration of proposals lacking
>one or the other.
Examples, please?
> Something is "testable" if there exists ways to
>either boost *or* reduce its credibility by observation. "And" is not
>required.
>
>We may be able to detect another universe, for example; but if we
>don't, that does not absolutely falsify it.
Again, you don't understand falsifiability. It's about
*prediction*, not necessarily direct observation. If a
hypothesis predicts something which can be measured and
potentially refuted, it's science. If not, it isn't. hat's
why ID isn't science; it makes no testable predictions, only
claims.
Bob Casanova
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:37:48 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
>> <top...@technologist.com>:
<snip>
>> > Demanding both
>> >is too tight a restriction on traditional science.
>> Take it up with the Elite Science Advisory Deacons.
>It's been easier to find God than the ESAD.
ESAD is simple; in fact, I've invited several annoying
idiots to do just that.
<snip>
topmind
> In article
> <f2ac9543-d801-447f-9069-b4684bc6c...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
Seems each SETI founder has their own little history.
>
> earle
> *
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > > the false clothing of The Scientific Supreme Court.
>
> > Not personal opinions but reflections on science from years of study
> > of varied disciplines. Sorry it doesn't meet your personal
> > requirements, but again you have an anal retentive , rigid
> > understanding of how science is supposed to be.
>
> I believe "science" to be continuous, not Boolean.
Your beliefs have no value with respect to the definition of science
and the scientific method. You can believe that "science" means "two
eggs over easy with bacon" but eating breakfast still won't make you a
scientist.
Re-read what Zachriel posted over a year ago the last time you were
demonstrating your profound ignorance here.
> A true diplomatic does not have to insult to make point.
A diplomat is trying to achieve a particular set of goals. You have
demonstrated that you provide no value to any discussion due to your
lack of intelligence, willful ignorance, and dishonesty. Making fun
of you is the only reason to communicate with you at all.
> Even if I was wrong and dumb and stupid and arrogant
> and all the other labels you tossed at me,
Which you provably are.
> calling me names would not
> make me change. When was the last time you saw insults changing
> ANYBODY? You change people's opinions by gaining their trust and then
> being very specific and detailed in your criticism.
That works for reasonable, reasonably intelligent, and somewhat honest
people. Not you.
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> Earle Jones wrote:
> > Is it possible to understand the ID hypothesis this way? Can you
> > formulate a falsifiable null hypothesis?
>
> There are no intelligent-designed artifacts in DNA.
Yet another cargo cult non-hypothesis.
Define your key term, "intelligent-designed artifacts". Explain
exactly how such a thing could be detected. Document the empirical
observations that lead to this claim. Detail the scientifically
supported assumptions on which your claim depends. In short, produce
a testable scientific hypothesis or admit that you are incapable of
doing so.
BJ
topmind
> "sci�ence (s���ns) n. Abbr. sc., sci. 1.a. The observation,
> identification, description, experimental investigation, and
> theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities
> restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such
> activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2.
> Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got
> packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that
> appears to require study and method: the science of
> purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through
> experience."
>
> Is Wikipedia blocked from all computers to which you have
> access? Wiki entry:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
>
> You're welcome.
If you can parse that one way and only one way to show how it backs
only your point of view here, be my guest.
[snipped issues addressed elsewhere]
RAM
some outstanding responses to your scientific inadequacies. You
assimilated none and yet you want me to do the same so that you can
reject any insight that leads to a better understanding of science.
Well lets give it a try.
Below reveals a remarkably ignorant statement about what is meant by
replication.
For someone who claims to have read a lot of the history of science it
would appear that you view replication like creationists. Why is
that?
Well replication doesn't refer to having history repeat itself. It
simply means having a research design thats is capable of being
duplicated .i.e it has no uniqueness that prevents another researcher
from do the identical research and assessing if the same or different
results are obtained.
So the statement immediately below:
"> Replicable removes a lot of theories and fields, including
cosmology,
> because the big bang is not likely to happen again anytime soon. Same
> with the Cambrian Explosion." is so damn dumb as to wonder if you ever got any science training.
When a scientist does replicable research that isn't duplicated like
cold fusion then the hypothesis is rejected. Other researchers
sometimes take up the challenge in the hopes that there were errors or
faults in the duplication processes. Replicability in science has to
do with research design not historical events.
Does that make sense. Yes scientists cannot design research to to
duplicate the "Big Bang" or the "Cambrian Explosion." Some historical
events are difficult to tackle scientifically and because they are
unique. Thus scientists make indirect observations that are
theoretically indicated about unique historical events that can be
replicated. Such as finding "background radiation" in support of the
Big Bang.
>
> As far as I can tell, you are making it up as you go.
Pot kettle black.
>
> These features may boost a scientific idea's standing, I will agree.
> But you are implying there is a Boolean test, but not describing it.
>
Boolean and continuous distributions are not very helpful ways of
looking at science. They are important scientific methods based on
these ideas, but it is best to study two or three scientific
disciplines (e.g. biology, geology and geography) and read a lot of
the research journals in topics that you best understand to get a
sense of what is distinctive and what is shared between various
sciences.
> > There are other criteria that may come
> > into play, such as those surrounding "non-normative theories, like the
> > presumed "ID theory" These generally require far greater theoretical
> > elaboration. Greater consideration to methodological issues of
> > measurement, research design and data quality.
>
> > Personal opinions are like aholes: everybody has
> > > one. Tying those opinions to something real and solid is the hard
> > > part. If you don't want to do the hard work of presenting your case
> > > properly, don't dump your frustration on me via anecdotal shortcuts of
> > > personal insults.
>
> > Being realistic can be insulting, but that's life.
>
> A true diplomatic does not have to insult to make point. Insults are
> for amateurs and the agitated. Your excuse to produce insults is
> frankly poor. Even if I was wrong and dumb and stupid and arrogant
> and all the other labels you tossed at me, calling me names would not
> make me change. When was the last time you saw insults changing
> ANYBODY? You change people's opinions by gaining their trust and then
> being very specific and detailed in your criticism.
>
I am not a diplomat. I was raised a hillbilly and I know what
ignorance, boneheadedness, and stupidity look like from personal
experience. I know what willful ignorance looks like and you fit the
bill to a -T-.
I'll stop poking at you when you start learning. Zachriel is an
outstanding teacher, others in these threads have given solid
insightful reasons as to why you are in error about lots of things and
yet you come back with the same old BS. Your nemesis is on target as
well about what is good science and yet all of us see no learning on
your part.
In fact each one of the people who have responded to you in this
thread have given a better account of what is science than you have.
You should reread all the response this thread and in the long threads
of several years ago that largely involved Zachriel and try to
assimilate them. I learned a lot from Zachriel and other people in
these threads. I can't say the same about you.
>
> > > I tried to make an effort to keep the insults and personal nits at
> > > bay, but you fired first, as the record shows. I don't turn the other
> > > cheek like the Jesus dude does.
>
> > Pointing out your errors and the idiocy of your requirements may be
> > insulting, but the volume of posting shows you have learned zilch and
> > thus it is rational to observe: "you are just a rigid self-important
> > "bone-headed" computer engineer who like creationists can't believe he
> > is as misinformed as he appears." and that "Either way ID will never
> > advance with or with-out your help."
>
> The feeling is mutual.
>
>
>
> > If you understood science we would not have this conversation.
>
> If you could convert your vague-but-strong feeling into solid words,
> we would not have to have this conversation.
>
> And, you are a rude person, to boot.
>
I plead guilty to this. If you learn. I will resolutely apologize.
RAM
>
>
> > RAM
>
> -T-
Kent Paul Dolan
another's daughter perceives afterwards that he wronged his own
daughter thereby. We cannot, without sin against humanity, ask the
scoffer's question, "Am I my sister's keeper?"--not even concerning
the poorest and meanest foreign woman, for the reason that _she is
our sister_. The conditions that surround the Hong Kong slave girl in
California are bound in time to have their influence upon the social,
legal and moral status of all California women, and later of all
American womanhood.
In considering the life history of the Chinese woman living in our
Chinatowns in America, therefore, we are studying matters of vital
importance to us. And in order to a clear understanding of the matter,
we must go back to the beginning of the slave-trade which has brought
these women to the West.
Four points on the south coast of China are of especial interest to
us, being the sources of supply of this slave-trade. These are Macao,
Canton, Kowloon and Hong Kong, and the women coming to the West from
this region all pass through Hong Kong, remaining there a
Kent Paul Dolan
but the dirty, forlorn garment worn through the day, had dropped
off to sleep. Thus she was easily captured and carried to the
Mission, where upon examination it was found that her head had
been severely cut from blows administered with a meat knife, the
hair was matted with blood and the child's whole body was covered
with filth, and showed signs of former punishments. After the
first fears of "being poisoned" were allayed, Ngun Fah expressed
herself as being very happy to be rescued from the suffering
and weariness of her life in Chinatown. Her master sent many
emissaries to the Home with offers of bribes, and many promises
of better treatment in the future, but all these overtures were
rejected, and when at length the matter of guardianship came up,
there was no one present to claim the child but her new friends at
the Mission Home.
No. 3. Suey Ying. Our dear baby was surely sent to dispel any
clouds of sadness which may be hovering round, for she takes all
of life as a huge joke. And where did Suey Ying come from? From a
part of Chinatown, dear friend, that you would not dare to enter,
and the strangest thing about her coming is that she was carried
to the Home by a fugitive slave woman, who was escaping to China.
Long ago this woman had spent a day or two in the Mission and was
impressed by the happy life of the children here and by the kind
treatment she herself received. Later on she purchased for $120
a little baby girl. She grew to love the tiny
topmind
I thought you meant replication of experiment, not replication of
observation. I cannot read minds and don't know what your intended
object of the sentence is without being told. It is due to lack of
sufficiently-clear writing, not dumbness on my part, as you imply.
Clarity is important for accurate communication.
I deserve an apology over that one.
>
> Does that make sense. Yes scientists cannot design research to to
> duplicate the "Big Bang" or the "Cambrian Explosion." Some historical
> events are difficult to tackle scientifically and because they are
> unique. Thus scientists make indirect observations that are
> theoretically indicated about unique historical events that can be
> replicated. Such as finding "background radiation" in support of the
> Big Bang.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, you are making it up as you go.
>
> Pot kettle black.
> >
> > These features may boost a scientific idea's standing, I will agree.
> > But you are implying there is a Boolean test, but not describing it.
> >
>
> Boolean and continuous distributions are not very helpful ways of
> looking at science. They are important scientific methods based on
> these ideas, but it is best to study two or three scientific
> disciplines (e.g. biology, geology and geography) and read a lot of
> the research journals in topics that you best understand to get a
> sense of what is distinctive and what is shared between various
> sciences.
This comes across as patronization and lecturing.
>
> > > There are other criteria that may come
> > > into play, such as those surrounding "non-normative theories, like the
> > > presumed "ID theory" �These generally require far greater theoretical
> > > elaboration. �Greater consideration to methodological issues of
> > > measurement, research design and data quality.
> >
> > > Personal opinions are like aholes: everybody has
> > > > one. Tying those opinions to something real and solid is the hard
> > > > part. If you don't want to do the hard work of presenting your case
> > > > properly, don't dump your frustration on me via anecdotal shortcuts of
> > > > personal insults.
> >
> > > Being realistic can be insulting, but that's life.
> >
> > A true diplomatic does not have to insult to make point. Insults are
> > for amateurs and the agitated. Your excuse to produce insults is
> > frankly poor. �Even if I was wrong and dumb and stupid and arrogant
> > and all the other labels you tossed at me, calling me names would not
> > make me change. When was the last time you saw insults changing
> > ANYBODY? �You change people's opinions by gaining their trust and then
> > being very specific and detailed in your criticism.
> >
> I am not a diplomat. I was raised a hillbilly and I know what
> ignorance, boneheadedness, and stupidity look like from personal
> experience. I know what willful ignorance looks like and you fit the
> bill to a -T-.
I have not said anything clearly wrong about science. Your argument
comes across as, "I know what science is when I *see* it because I am
educated and smart and you are not." Is this how you want to come
across? That doesn't cut it. That is argument-from-authority, not
argument from fact.
You need to apply the scientific process to your definition of
science.
>
> I'll stop poking at you when you start learning. Zachriel is an
> outstanding teacher, others in these threads have given solid
> insightful reasons as to why you are in error about lots of things and
> yet you come back with the same old BS. Your nemesis is on target as
> well about what is good science and yet all of us see no learning on
> your part.
Personally, I found Zachriel to be jerk. He had a similar, "I know
science when I see it and that is good enough" tilt that you do.
>
> In fact each one of the people who have responded to you in this
> thread have given a better account of what is science than you have.
> You should reread all the response this thread and in the long threads
> of several years ago that largely involved Zachriel and try to
> assimilate them. I learned a lot from Zachriel and other people in
> these threads. I can't say the same about you.
I learned that when something is poorly defined, people pick a
personal pet interpretation and dig in their heals like a lion
defending its kill. It is an ugly side of human nature.
> > > > I tried to make an effort to keep the insults and personal nits at
> > > > bay, but you fired first, as the record shows. I don't turn the other
> > > > cheek like the Jesus dude does.
> >
> > > Pointing out your errors and the idiocy of your requirements may be
> > > insulting, but the volume of posting shows you have learned zilch and
> > > thus it is rational to observe: "you are just a rigid self-important
> > > "bone-headed" computer engineer who like creationists can't believe he
> > > is as misinformed as he appears." and that "Either way ID will never
> > > advance with or with-out your help."
> >
> > The feeling is mutual.
> >
> >
> >
> > > If you understood science we would not have this conversation.
> >
> > If you could convert your vague-but-strong feeling into solid words,
> > we would not have to have this conversation.
> >
> > And, you are a rude person, to boot.
> >
> I plead guilty to this. If you learn. I will resolutely apologize.
>
> RAM
-T-
RAM
This statement reveals how damn ignorant you are of scientific
research. It really makes no sense. An experiment is a type of
research design. There are other types of research designs such as
survey's, field experiments and a variety of statistical modeling
strategies. All must be replicable, have a falsifiable hypothesis,
and make observations (i.e. data collection and analysis). All
replication of experiments will of necessity attempt to replicate
observations.
>I cannot read minds and don't know what your intended
> object of the sentence is without being told. It is due to lack of
> sufficiently-clear writing, not dumbness on my part, as you imply.
It is clear you have no idea how scientist employ research terminology
yet you insist that you know science. You are an arrogant bone-
head.
> Clarity is important for accurate communication.
Learn some basic research design strategies and you won't have a
problem with clarity.
>
> I deserve an apology over that one.
>
I deserve one for insulting my intelligence. You don't know what you
are talking about when it comes to the logic of scientific research
nor how different strategies provide different insights and then
confuse experiments with observations as if that justifies your
ignorance and confusion about historical uniqueness debilitating
scientific replication.
Yet you continue to argue and pout and refuse to learn.
>
>
>
>
> > Does that make sense. Yes scientists cannot design research to to
> > duplicate the "Big Bang" or the "Cambrian Explosion." Some historical
> > events are difficult to tackle scientifically and because they are
> > unique. Thus scientists make indirect observations that are
> > theoretically indicated about unique historical events that can be
> > replicated. Such as finding "background radiation" in support of the
> > Big Bang.
>
> > > As far as I can tell, you are making it up as you go.
>
> > Pot kettle black.
>
> > > These features may boost a scientific idea's standing, I will agree.
> > > But you are implying there is a Boolean test, but not describing it.
>
> > Boolean and continuous distributions are not very helpful ways of
> > looking at science. They are important scientific methods based on
> > these ideas, but it is best to study two or three scientific
> > disciplines (e.g. biology, geology and geography) and read a lot of
> > the research journals in topics that you best understand to get a
> > sense of what is distinctive and what is shared between various
> > sciences.
>
> This comes across as patronization and lecturing.
>
>
See Above
>
>
>
> > > > There are other criteria that may come
> > > > into play, such as those surrounding "non-normative theories, like the
> > > > presumed "ID theory" �These generally require far greater theoretical
> > > > elaboration. �Greater consideration to methodological issues of
> > > > measurement, research design and data quality.
>
> > > > Personal opinions are like aholes: everybody has
> > > > > one. Tying those opinions to something real and solid is the hard
> > > > > part. If you don't want to do the hard work of presenting your case
> > > > > properly, don't dump your frustration on me via anecdotal shortcuts of
> > > > > personal insults.
>
> > > > Being realistic can be insulting, but that's life.
>
> > > A true diplomatic does not have to insult to make point. Insults are
> > > for amateurs and the agitated. Your excuse to produce insults is
> > > frankly poor. �Even if I was wrong and dumb and stupid and arrogant
> > > and all the other labels you tossed at me, calling me names would not
> > > make me change. When was the last time you saw insults changing
> > > ANYBODY? �You change people's opinions by gaining their trust and then
> > > being very specific and detailed in your criticism.
>
> > I am not a diplomat. I was raised a hillbilly and I know what
> > ignorance, boneheadedness, and stupidity look like from personal
> > experience. I know what willful ignorance looks like and you fit the
> > bill to a -T-.
>
> I have not said anything clearly wrong about science.
This needs to be spell out for you - bull shit!!! You are wrong about
replication and unique historical events and experiments as it relates
to observations.
Your argument
> comes across as, "I know what science is when I *see* it because I am
> educated and smart and you are not." Is this how you want to come
> across? That doesn't cut it. That is argument-from-authority, not
> argument from fact.
>
> You need to apply the scientific process to your definition of
> science.
>
>
>
> > I'll stop poking at you when you start learning. Zachriel is an
> > outstanding teacher, others in these threads have given solid
> > insightful reasons as to why you are in error about lots of things and
> > yet you come back with the same old BS. Your nemesis is on target as
> > well about what is good science and yet all of us see no learning on
> > your part.
>
> Personally, I found Zachriel to be jerk. He had a similar, "I know
> science when I see it and that is good enough" tilt that you do.
>
And I find you to be a jerk. You have a know it all attitude about
what constitutes science and yet fuck up the most basic ideas.
And personally I learned a lot from Zachriel.
>
> > In fact each one of the people who have responded to you in this
> > thread have given a better account of what is science than you have.
> > You should reread all the response this thread and in the long threads
> > of several years ago that largely involved Zachriel and try to
> > assimilate them. I learned a lot from Zachriel and other people in
> > these threads. I can't say the same about you.
>
> I learned that when something is poorly defined, people pick a
> personal pet interpretation and dig in their heals like a lion
> defending its kill. It is an ugly side of human nature.
>
This could be a self exploratory insight. But it won't be. My
paragraph above discusses how to learn empathetically from people like
Zachriel and you respond to how things are poorly defined. Science
has a lot of poorly defined areas and you want resolute clarity. That
is not the way to learn science.
It really appears is what you really need is a tutor with a two-by-
four.
RAM
> > > > > I tried to make an effort to keep the insults and personal nits at
> > > > > bay, but you fired first, as the record shows. I don't turn the other
> > > > > cheek like the Jesus dude does.
>
> > > > Pointing out your errors and the idiocy of your requirements may be
> > > > insulting, but the volume of posting shows you have learned zilch and
> > > > thus it is rational to observe: "you are just a rigid self-important
> > > > "bone-headed" computer engineer who like creationists can't believe he
> > > > is as misinformed as he appears." and that "Either way ID will never
> > > > advance with or with-out your help."
>
> > > The feeling is mutual.
>
> > > > If you understood science we would not have this conversation.
>
> > > If you could convert your vague-but-strong feeling into solid words,
> > > we would not have to have this conversation.
>
> > > And, you are a rude person, to boot.
>
> > I plead guilty to this. If you learn. I will resolutely apologize....
>
> read more »
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> I have not said anything clearly wrong about science.
You are either deluded or a liar. Based on your history here, you are
both. In just this one thread you have said:
>> And note that none of this makes either one any sort of
>> scientific hypothesis, since the non-falsifiability problem
>> still exists - if it can only be confirmed, but can't be
>> refuted, it's not science.
>
> Well, I disagree. It only needs one or the other (true-ifiable or
> falsifiable).
This is utterly and completely wrong.
Bob Casanova
>> "sci?ence (s???ns) n. Abbr. sc., sci. 1.a. The observation,
>> identification, description, experimental investigation, and
>> theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities
>> restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such
>> activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2.
>> Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got
>> packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that
>> appears to require study and method: the science of
>> purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through
>> experience."
>>
>> Is Wikipedia blocked from all computers to which you have
>> access? Wiki entry:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
>If you can parse that one way and only one way to show how it backs
>only your point of view here, be my guest.
Easily. Obviously, only def 1 is about "classic" science.
Look at def 1.a. Note the part about "experimental
investigation". In science, that means constructing a
hypothesis about the observation and formulating predictions
based on that hypothesis, then testing to see if the
predictions are refuted. If they're not, the hypothesis is
strengthened. This continues until no more predictions can
be formulated. If the hypothesis hasn't been refuted by
failure of one or more predictions, and if it accounts for
all known data, and *if it makes predictions which have not
been, or cannot be, accounted for by competing hypotheses*,
it's generally accorded the status of "theory". It holds
this status until/unless new data leads to predictions which
refute the theory, *or* until a more parsimonious hypothesis
*which also accounts for all of the data* is formulated.
Note that no amount of confirmatory data can establish a
theory to be "truth", since any single confirmed example of
a failed prediction will result in the theory being either
scrapped or (more likely) modified; this is why experiment
must test for falsification rather than confirmation, and
why any hypothesis must be falsifiable. For examples of how
this works, Google "Michaelson-Morley" with "aether",
"Planck" with either "black body radiation" or "quantum
theory", and "Einstein" with either "General Relativity" or
"precession".
You're welcome.
--
topmind
RAM wrote:
> It is clear you have no idea how scientist employ research terminology
> yet you insist that you know science. You are an arrogant bone-
> head.
I'm done with you, pompous hot-air walrus. You use NOTHING but the
FALLACY of Ad Verecundiam (argument-from-authority) to define
"science", electing yourself as the authority.
I hope creationists plaster their shit all over textbooks JUST to piss
you off. You deserve it because you are a foul human being. I tried
to be nice and avoid insulting back, but you reached the limit of my
patience.
Be gone, you worthless shit of a human being.
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> RAM wrote:
> > It is clear you have no idea how scientist employ research terminology
> > yet you insist that you know science. You are an arrogant bone-
> > head.
>
> I'm done with you, pompous hot-air walrus.
Projection. Look it up in an intro psych book.
> I hope creationists
Like you?
> plaster their shit all over textbooks JUST to piss
> you off.
So you support destroying the education system in this country because
someone pointed out a few home truths to you. Why am I not surprised?
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to demonstrate an
understanding of science and the scientific method. You have not. In
fact, you've done the opposite.
Produce a scientific hypothesis or admit that you are incapable of
doing so.
BJ
RAM
Well yes I'm the self elected authority on science exactly like you
are when you claimed to have made no mistakes about science. You in
this thread wrote: "I have not said anything clearly wrong about
science."
That is quite authoritative. Did someone else insist you write this?
I and others have pointed out your errors. In sum, they are quite
voluminous.
I omitted talking about your silly and bizarre "true-ifaction"
standard for science. It was correctly and fairly incisively handle
by someone who clearly understands science.
If you are such an authority on science; maybe you could cite the
literature yourself on this topic. All of my critiques of your vision
of science can be found in scientific research methods texts for most
sciences.
I refuse to spoon feed someone who insists on definitions of science
that correct all his bizarre misunderstandings and who has again
demonstrated that he will not learn that his is mistaken on many basic
scientific issues.
Indeed you clearly have a "Bush" syndrome when it comes to science.
Again you: "I have not said anything clearly wrong about science." It
may not be a "lie" to you but it reflects as sense of clearly
unwarranted self-assuredness about science that is remarkable for its
disparity from reality.
In sum, your "willful ignorance [e.g. true-ification,
misunderstanding of replication in science] coupled with
boneheadedness [e.g. I make no clearly wrong statements about
science]" are still the source of your problems in understanding
science. If you are astute enough to understand that people won't
change their attitudes and behavior when they are derided maybe you
can do the following: find another cyber space where people won't
point out your obvious problems.
RAM
topmind
any solid logic. You may disagree with my description/definition of
science, but you don't replace it with something that is verifiably
better. Everything you accuse me of, you are equally guilty at least.
And you are annoying.
topmind
You are going outside the definition here.
> constructing a
> hypothesis about the observation and formulating predictions
> based on that hypothesis, then testing to see if the
> predictions are refuted. If they're not, the hypothesis is
> strengthened. This continues until no more predictions can
> be formulated.
Where is this loop-until-finality statement in the definition?
> If the hypothesis hasn't been refuted by
> failure of one or more predictions, and if it accounts for
> all known data, and *if it makes predictions which have not
> been, or cannot be, accounted for by competing hypotheses*,
> it's generally accorded the status of "theory". It holds
> this status until/unless new data leads to predictions which
> refute the theory, *or* until a more parsimonious hypothesis
> *which also accounts for all of the data* is formulated.
> Note that no amount of confirmatory data can establish a
> theory to be "truth", since any single confirmed example of
> a failed prediction will result in the theory being either
> scrapped or (more likely) modified; this is why experiment
> must test for falsification rather than confirmation, and
> why any hypothesis must be falsifiable. For examples of how
> this works, Google "Michaelson-Morley" with "aether",
> "Planck" with either "black body radiation" or "quantum
> theory", and "Einstein" with either "General Relativity" or
> "precession".
And you have a lot of conditions that don't necessarily follow from
the definition. If this and this but not this or this etc. etc. etc.
How do we know those are AND's instead of OR's, and so forth? Let
alone the origin of those clauses.
>
> You're welcome.
You are injecting your internal interpretation into it. Either that
you are not showing how there is only one path from the original to
your restatement.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
-T-
RAM
> You are a poor debater. You reference nothing solid and you don't use
> any solid logic. You may disagree with my description/definition of
> science, but you don't replace it with something that is verifiably
> better.
I saw Zachriel try to teach you. Stupidity is often defined as
consistently trying the exact same thing and expecting a different
outcome. I will not deign to try and teach you. You have
demonstrated a boneheadedness that verges on the pathological. I have
consistently insisted that you look at what Zachriel wrote (as well as
others) and try to understand why he is 99 percent correct. I also
mentioned reading science research methods texts. You can dismiss me
totally for all I care, but numerous others often have pointed out in
detail why you are wrong and you always want more detail!
I am confident from past experience that you do not wish to learn on
TO. I have seen you parse statements to mean something other than
what was intended, shift the focus of the issues to win a point, move
goal posts, and generally claim superior knowledge about subjects on
which you are clearly an amateur.
It is clear that your intent here is to make a case for a set of ideas
that can not be supported by how you conceptualize science. If you
were truly wanting to learn science you would not take my word for it
but investigate it by researching the scientific literature that you
enjoy. Besides there is far more to be learned there than what I have
to offer.
> Everything you accuse me of, you are equally guilty at least.
No this is false, you have offered no insights into science.
Others have. Take for example, the recent issue about how the logic
of science requires a problematic approach to any phenomena under
investigation. It was clearly stated that this means hypotheses must
be falsifiable. I and others have mentioned this numerous times. Yet
you come up with and insist on the correctness of a neologism you term
- "true-ification." You are told this is not how science proceeds and
why. Yet when they tell you why its wrong you insist that science
actually does/or can do "true-ification" research.
I therefore repeat: "what you need is a tutor with a two-by four."
And you call me annoying and imply I don't wish to learn.
I'm not in it for the debate but to speak-out out against your
"crapified"(TM) view of science.
Again, I refuse to believe you really want to know why you are so
often wrong about science. That you could, albeit with some effort,
correct. It needs to be repeated; I have seen far more patient people
than me try educating you and then get called a jerk or dismissed.
> And you are annoying.
And you aren't?????!!!!!!
RAM
Bob Casanova
>You are a poor debater. You reference nothing solid and you don't use
Talking to yourself?
Bob Casanova
You're unwilling to accept that scientific requirements are
as described by numerous posters, including myself, all of
whom, unlike you, actually know something about science.
Fine. Enjoy your delusions, and HANL.
topmind
You are next, psychotic handle-boy:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1529267420070616?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
------
topmind
Bob Casanova wrote:
> >
> >You are injecting your internal interpretation into it. Either that
> >you are not showing how there is only one path from the original to
> >your restatement.
>
> You're unwilling to accept that scientific requirements are
> as described by numerous posters, including myself, all of
> whom, unlike you, actually know something about science.
> Fine. Enjoy your delusions, and HANL.
Show me solid sources for your definitions and about what features are
required, how much of them, and in which combinations (AND, OR, NOT,
etc.).
When definitions are vague, web people ALWAYS call the other person
"dumb" when they disagree with their personal interpretation. Its a
web tradition. "Trust me on the def, I'm smart and educated" DOES NOT
CUT IT and should not cut it. Why you expect me to just accept such
crap, I don't know.
It's also a formal debate fallacy. Do you realize that?
Such poor argumentation will just allow Creationists to eventually
weave into the cracks in the courts etc. I hope they do just to force
the likes of you to clean up their claims.
"Trust me on the def, I'm smart and educated" DOES NOT CUT IT and
should not cut it.
"Trust me on the def, I'm smart and educated" DOES NOT CUT IT and
should not cut it.
"Trust me on the def, I'm smart and educated" DOES NOT CUT IT and
should not cut it.
"Trust me on the def, I'm smart and educated" DOES NOT CUT IT and
should not cut it.
"Trust me on the def, I'm smart and educated" DOES NOT CUT IT and
should not cut it.
"Trust me on the def, I'm smart and educated" DOES NOT CUT IT and
should not cut it.
Do you get it now?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-01-27, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> You are next, psychotic handle-boy:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1529267420070616?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
It would be difficult for you to be defamed, since you post from behind
an alias as well.
> ------
Mark
Free Lunch
topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote in
<9ed8e066-c41a-4292...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
Given your history, we wish you would get it.
topmind
RAM wrote:
> On Jan 26, 9:05�pm, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > You are a poor debater. You reference nothing solid and you don't use
> > any solid logic. You may disagree with my description/definition of
> > science, but you don't replace it with something that is verifiably
> > better.
>
> I saw Zachriel try to teach you. Stupidity is often defined as
> consistently trying the exact same thing and expecting a different
> outcome. I will not deign to try and teach you. You have
> demonstrated a boneheadedness that verges on the pathological.
You have demonstrated a complete lack of debate ability, expecting to
me just swallow your version of the world without references or logic.
Same with Zachriel. You two are two pea-heads in a pod. You don't
understand that evidence and details matters. Your personal opinions
about what "science" is WORTH SHIT! W-O-R-T-H S-H-I-T in this
setting.
If you don't understand that, you are delusional.
> I have
> consistently insisted that you look at what Zachriel wrote (as well as
> others) and try to understand why he is 99 percent correct. I also
> mentioned reading science research methods texts. You can dismiss me
> totally for all I care, but numerous others often have pointed out in
> detail why you are wrong and you always want more detail!
>
> I am confident from past experience that you do not wish to learn on
> TO.
You don't teach right. I'm not going to just suck personal opinions
out of your mouth like a baby bird.
> I have seen you parse statements to mean something other than
> what was intended,
Then restate what you really meant. I don't purposely misinterpret
stuff.
> shift the focus of the issues to win a point,
Then point it out and restate the real issue at hand. I don't
purposely wonder off topic.
> move
> goal posts, and generally claim superior knowledge about subjects on
> which you are clearly an amateur.
Then prove me wrong with facts and references, NOT your PERSONAL
opinion.
All these alleged sins of mine are easy to fix on your part. You are
just whining for the sake of whining because you cannot produce self-
standing evidence, and thus are complaining about dust out of
frustration.
>
> It is clear that your intent here is to make a case for a set of ideas
> that can not be supported by how you conceptualize science. If you
> were truly wanting to learn science you would not take my word for it
> but investigate it by researching the scientific literature that you
> enjoy.
That is non-specific. Is science a set of practices or a feeling? Is
science a feeling one gets after reading bunches of journals???? That
is so stupid.
> Besides there is far more to be learned there than what I have
> to offer.
>
> > Everything you accuse me of, you are equally guilty at least.
>
> No this is false, you have offered no insights into science.
>
> Others have. Take for example, the recent issue about how the logic
> of science requires a problematic approach to any phenomena under
> investigation. It was clearly stated that this means hypotheses must
> be falsifiable.
Again, there are ideas in science which are not falsifiable, but still
testable because they are "true-ifiable". If your PERSONAL definition
requires both, so be it; but stop assuming your PERSONAL DEFINITION is
the center of the universe or the official standard.
(In fact, evolution is not absolutely falsifiable. Just because it has
not been proven to happen at spot X does not mean it never happened
anywhere.)
Again again again again, I don't give a shit about what your personal
opinion is.
> I and others have mentioned this numerous times. Yet
> you come up with and insist on the correctness of a neologism you term
> - "true-ification." You are told this is not how science proceeds and
> why. Yet when they tell you why its wrong you insist that science
> actually does/or can do "true-ification" research.
>
> I therefore repeat: "what you need is a tutor with a two-by four."
Violence. How fitting.
>
> And you call me annoying and imply I don't wish to learn.
>
> I'm not in it for the debate but to speak-out out against your
> "crapified"(TM) view of science.
>
> Again, I refuse to believe you really want to know why you are so
> often wrong about science.
Science is not a feeling. That is why your Argument-From-Feeling is
ineffective.
> That you could, albeit with some effort,
> correct. It needs to be repeated; I have seen far more patient people
> than me try educating you and then get called a jerk or dismissed.
>
> > And you are annoying.
>
> And you aren't?????!!!!!!
If you define "annoying" as "anybody who doesn't trust me without
question", then yes.
>
> RAM
-T-
topmind
Kettle black
-T-
topmind
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:09:59 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by topmind
> <top...@technologist.com>:
> >And you have a lot of conditions that don't necessarily follow from
> >the definition. If this and this but not this or this etc. etc. etc.
> >How do we know those are AND's instead of OR's, and so forth? Let
> >alone the origin of those clauses.
> >
> >>
> >> You're welcome.
> >
> >You are injecting your internal interpretation into it. Either that
> >you are not showing how there is only one path from the original to
> >your restatement.
>
> You're unwilling to accept that scientific requirements are
> as described by numerous posters, including myself, all of
> whom, unlike you, actually know something about science.
> Fine. Enjoy your delusions, and HANL.
If you really know what science is, then produce an exact formulation
so that I don't have to really on your feelings to evaluate situations
one at a time. If all that fat ego-encased knowledge in your head
cannot be used to formulate a precise definition then you DON'T know
what science is.
Science is not clearly defined in general. Experts in the field debate
whether things like SETI and multiverses are based on science or
something else. It is an open philosophical debate. You're painting it
as precise is false, and the fact you cannot produce a good consensus
formulation is evidence of this.
Your ego writes checks that your fingertips cannot cash.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
It's impossible for me to be defaming you, because you yourself have
destroyed any hope of having a reasonable reputation in this forum.
I'm just laughing at you publicly (and I'm not alone).
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > You're unwilling to accept that scientific requirements are
> > as described by numerous posters, including myself, all of
> > whom, unlike you, actually know something about science.
> > Fine. Enjoy your delusions, and HANL.
>
> Show me solid sources for your definitions and about what features are
> required, how much of them, and in which combinations (AND, OR, NOT,
> etc.).
This was done repeatedly by numerous individuals during your last
prolonged infestation of this newsgroup. One of the best examples is
Zachriel's blog post on the scientific method:
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Many references to other sources were also provided. You ignored them
all, demonstrating your willful ignorance and limited intelligence.
At its core, the scientific method is pretty straightforward:
observe, hypothesize, predict, test, repeat. Observations must be
repeatable and hypotheses must be falsifiable. This is something that
most people learn in high school or earlier. If you can't understand
it, the fault is not with everyone who has been trying to educate you.
topmind
> On Jan 27, 5:03 pm, topmind <topm...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > You are next, psychotic handle-boy:
>
> >http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1529267420070616?fee...
>
> It's impossible for me to be defaming you, because you yourself have
> destroyed any hope of having a reasonable reputation in this forum.
> I'm just laughing at you publicly (and I'm not alone).
>
> BJ
>
I meant a lawsuit, not Star Search, idiot.
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > consistently insisted that you look at what Zachriel wrote (as well as
> > others) and try to understand why he is 99 percent correct. I also
> > mentioned reading science research methods texts. You can dismiss me
> > totally for all I care, but numerous others often have pointed out in
> > detail why you are wrong and you always want more detail!
>
> > I am confident from past experience that you do not wish to learn on
> > TO.
>
> You don't teach right.
You absolutely refuse to learn. Either you're intellectually
incapable of learning or determined to remain ignorant for
psychological reasons. Both conclusions can be reasonably drawn from
your history in this newsgroup.
Regardless of the reason for your continued ignorance, your claims
that no one has provided a clear definition of the scientific method
is simply a lie. Anyone reading this thread or the threads from your
previous participation here can easily see the truth.
BJ
----
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dfa00a58f25f28ac: