|
Scientificity (and "intelligent design") (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by rawbound
This discussion would be more fun if there'd be someone who actually belives in this crapp discussing :) |
Haha, yeah. I guess the ID proponents are afraid of the civil justice of the internet. I would be afraid too.
I watched the Nova special on Youtube and that case went down without a hitch for the plaintiffs who were against ID. That flagellum is quiet amazing! |
|
|
| Aristronica |
ok, just because i read through this thread and all these unformulated thoughts are making my brain bleed, can i ask the following -
are you guys arguing whether or not ID should be accepted as a scientific theorem?? |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aristronica
are you guys arguing whether or not ID should be accepted as a scientific theorem?? |
I am 68% positive that it is. |
|
|
| Aristronica |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
I am 68% positive that it is. |
only intelligent design i'm aware of is Aphex Twin's music catalog. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
what do you think about the "falsifiability" criterion? |
The falsifiability criterion, albeit important, is not as powerful as most of us would expect.
Usually, theory and experimentation walk hand in hand: Once a theory has been accepted as being right, scientists fill out the gaps the theory might have, or just stress the fact that the theory behaves as planned (i.e. it is right).
As the amount of scientists testing a theory increases, some glitches are to be found. Some of these flaws do prove that there's something wrong, but scientists do not ditch the theory and move on right away. They "cling" to it, make some adjustments here and there, and try not to discard it.
Theories are often abandoned only when these glitches are too numerous, and the theory cannot be adjusted anymore. That's also the reason why new theories aren't picked up as quickly as one would expect (reason why, in the beginning, both Darwin and Copernicus had to face the resistance by other scientists, and not just by the Church, whose role in these issues is often blown out of proportion). |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Itchy
you know what would be really great? if a place existed here where we can discuss this kind of topic. a place for religion and politics. that would be really something. |
|
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Once a theory has been accepted as being right, |
I cringed at this. We can never prove anything right, we can only prove that an opposing option is wrong (disproving a null hypothesis). So a theory is made out of thin air (usually based on some literature) and then the process of experimentation examines it.
im also thinking of a something Ive learned whereas if a theory explains everything, it is useless. it was something along those lines, and I usually hear discussions involving religion and ID resort this this... god made it that way, or its because of god. I wish I could remember where and when I heard this though. |
|
|
| Az |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
im also thinking of a something Ive learned whereas if a theory explains everything, it is useless. |
it's only useless as a theory, it becomes a cold hard fact, and that'd pretty ing incredible, especially for the theory of evolution |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
I cringed at this. We can never prove anything right, |
if we cannot prove anything right, how do you explain working technology? |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
if we cannot prove anything right, how do you explain working technology? |
Huh? you mean getting something to work that does not currently work?
this is what i meant
this is an example from my stats book I teach from. Say you want to prove that all dogs have 4 legs. So you go and get a dog with 4 legs, then another one, then another one....however there is no end to this proving your theory correct.
Now imagine you wanted to prove that the theory that all dogs have 4 legs is false. It's pretty simple, you just find a 3 legged dog and you have proven a theory wrong.
this is what science has adapted as their method. They setup their own hypothesis and an opposing one (null hypothesis), then they experiment to prove the null hypothesis is false, thereby lending support to their theory. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
Huh? you mean getting something to work that does not currently work?
this is what i meant
this is an example from my stats book I teach from. Say you want to prove that all dogs have 4 legs. So you go and get a dog with 4 legs, then another one, then another one....however there is no end to this proving your theory correct.
Now imagine you wanted to prove that the theory that all dogs have 4 legs is false. It's pretty simple, you just find a 3 legged dog and you have proven a theory wrong.
this is what science has adapted as their method. They setup their own hypothesis and an opposing one (null hypothesis), then they experiment to prove the null hypothesis is false, thereby lending support to their theory. |
ahh, ok. that makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
