What is ID?

[August]

Does this mean ID is wrong? Absolutely not, it makes a compelling case.
But is ID really a scientific endeavor?

Sigh.

Here we go again...

What is science? What demarcates science from non-science, and why?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Let's go over the scientific method again.

Observation
Hypothesis
Application
Test

Now in order for this to work the principals must be active and fairly constant. Otherwise testing would be unmanageable.

What is the hypothesis of ID? Is it that intelligence is involved in the variety of life? Does this not assume that complexity implies intelligence?

Or is it that intelligence is involved in the origin of complexity? Does this not make the assumption that there is an intelligent agent? Because other than the complexeties themselves there are no other indications.

One must first test the assumptions before moving onto these larger questions.

Is there evidence for the designer?
Is there evidence that complexity requires intelligence?

A designer is not a constant force. We could not say that a crater was the result an asteroid impact if we have never seen an asteroid. Or seen an asteroid impact, or even have evidence of the asteroid in the impact area.

Science only stands on the observations made, observations from countless experiments and surveys. It does not stand on assumptions.

[August]

Let's go over the scientific method again.
Observation
Hypothesis
Application
Test

Is the scientific method scientific by that standard? Please note, not the application of the method, but the method itself.

What do you mean by observation? Is science subject to the directly observable alone? Or can it include abductive inferences?

Edit: I also want to ask this, what is the purpose of calling some theories scientific, and others not?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Let's go over the scientific method again.
Observation
Hypothesis
Application
Test

Is the scientific method scientific by that standard? Please note, not the application of the method, but the method itself.

No it's a method, how can a method be subject to itself?
Can I measure an inch?

What do you mean by observation? Is science subject to the directly observable alone? Or can it include abductive inferences?

No observation is direct.
Observation can be deductive. Such as intrepreting the signals from a radio telescope. how can you make abductive observations?

The hypothesis can be inductive.

[August]

Let's go over the scientific method again.
Observation
Hypothesis
Application
Test

Is the scientific method scientific by that standard? Please note, not the application of the method, but the method itself.

No it's a method, how can a method be subject to itself?
Can I measure an inch?

So if the method cannot be scientifically proven, how can you use it to demarcate science from non-science?

What is the origin of the method? What were the starting premises and underlying assumptions for constructing this particular method?

No observation is direct.

You are going to have to explain that to me.

Observation can be deductive. Such as intrepreting the signals from a radio telescope.

How is that deductive? Observation is merely the gathering of data, not the interpretation?

how can you make abductive observations?

Huh? Where did I say "abductive observation"? It was abductive inference.[/quote]

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Is the scientific method scientific by that standard? Please note, not the application of the method, but the method itself.

No it's a method, how can a method be subject to itself?
Can I measure an inch?

So if the method cannot be scientifically proven, how can you use it to demarcate science from non-science?

I don't follow, are you asking me to use the definition of science to define the definition of science?

What is the origin of the method? What were the starting premises and underlying assumptions for constructing this particular method?

The underlying premise is that a particular topic under study follows a repeatable testable pattern.
We went over the origin of the method. The point is that it was not enough to make a conclusion based on observation, we have to go back and test the conclusions.

No observation is direct.

You are going to have to explain that to me.

Everything from what we see to what we touch is ultimately an indirect inference.

Observation can be deductive. Such as intrepreting the signals from a radio telescope.

How is that deductive? Observation is merely the gathering of data, not the interpretation?

What do you mean by inference if it doesn't mean interpretation? Can you see radio signals? There needs to be some sort of deductive inference to interpret the radio signals.
This is not visible with the naked eye.

Image from NRAO/AUI

how can you make abductive observations?

Huh? Where did I say "abductive observation"? It was abductive inference.

Give me an example of an abductive inference.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Edit: I also want to ask this, what is the purpose of calling some theories scientific, and others not?

The critical thinking required by science is a valuable skill in certain sectors of the public and of the government. This is why it is crucial to demarcate the hard sciences from the other fields so that schools such as MIT and Stanford can make sure that they admit highly analytical students who are willing to be critical of all things. An abililty to understand that one can never be certain is the halmark of critical thinking.

Of course in the government sector they want people to be critical of all things except for the government.
lol

The advancement of science is based purely on new discoveries and a willingness to accept that which may go against one's own preconceptions. Many major discoveries are counter intuitive and requires a fresh perspective in order to make sence of it.

This is not to say that one cannot have personal beleifs, but one must be willing to admit that these beleifs no matter one's own convictions does not stand up to scrutiny in another's worldview, analytically speaking of course.

[Canuckster1127]

I stumbled upon this site.

http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html

I haven't formed any conclusions. Looks like a pretty well qualified mathematician with some thoughts in Intelligent Design along the lines of recent conversations. He specifically distances himself from Dembski and the Discovery Institute though.

He has some negative things to say about Hugh Ross which predisposes me against him as I have a great deal of respect for Ross.

Here's a subsection of Randomness that ties more directly into where this thread has gone.

http://www.serve.com/herrmann/random1.htm

I haven't digested it all yet. I offer it as a point of information with no opinion as to its relevence.

[August]

Is the scientific method scientific by that standard? Please note, not the application of the method, but the method itself.

No it's a method, how can a method be subject to itself?
Can I measure an inch?

So if the method cannot be scientifically proven, how can you use it to demarcate science from non-science?

I don't follow, are you asking me to use the definition of science to define the definition of science?

Is science scientific? Using your argument above, the definition of science cannot stand up to its own requirements.

Look at it this way, the scientific method is not the definition of science. If I can extrapolate, then science is that which we can apply the scientific method to. The method itself is just a tool, not a description of the discipline. However, if you were to insist that the method is the definition, then it is internally inconsistent.

Also, if by definition science is that that we can apply the scientific method to, then astrologers and psychics are also doing science. They also apply the method.

Does the scientific method apply in all cases, everywhere, to demarcate science from non-science?

The underlying premise is that a particular topic under study follows a repeatable testable pattern.

I guess that pretty much disqualifies every historical science, unless you have seen any cambrian explosions lately.

Do you equate repeatability with law?

We went over the origin of the method. The point is that it was not enough to make a conclusion based on observation, we have to go back and test the conclusions.

Where did we go over the origin of the method? Who came up with it and when? Why did they? Has it stayed the same since the original definition?

August wrote:

Quote:
No observation is direct.

You are going to have to explain that to me.

Everything from what we see to what we touch is ultimately an indirect inference.

C'mon Bgood, play along. Repeating back to me what you said in other words is not an explanation.

I was under the impression we have both direct and indirect observation. Isn't observation just the gathering of data, and that the inferences start when we come up with hypothesis?

What do you mean by inference if it doesn't mean interpretation? Can you see radio signals? There needs to be some sort of deductive inference to interpret the radio signals.
This is not visible with the naked eye.

As I said above, there are both direct and indirect observations. The observation of radio waves can be termed inference, since we observe the unobservable in terms of the observable. We also have geologists who can directly observe rock formations, and there is no need for inference. If we had no observable phenomena, we could not observe anything, because we would have nothing to infer against.

I don't think we disagree too much here?

Give me an example of an abductive inference.

Abductive inference is the inference or reasoning to the best explanation. It is widely used in medical diagnostics, for example, but also in speech recognition etc.

Here is an example that you may enjoy.
"Abductive Inference of Genetic Networks"
http://magix.fri.uni-lj.si/Blaz/papers/ ... 0inference'

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Is science scientific? Using your argument above, the definition of science cannot stand up to its own requirements.

How so? Are you asking us to test a method? Should I have formed a hypothesis for using hypothesis before I can formulate a hypothesis? I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Look at it this way, the scientific method is not the definition of science. If I can extrapolate, then science is that which we can apply the scientific method to. The method itself is just a tool, not a description of the discipline. However, if you were to insist that the method is the definition, then it is internally inconsistent.

It's not that which you can apply the method to. It's the body of knowledge accumulated by the application of the method.

Also, if by definition science is that that we can apply the scientific method to, then astrologers and psychics are also doing science. They also apply the method.

How do these fields apply the scientific method? Does a psychic do double blind experiments to determine the efficacy of their predictions? Are the star charts a result of carefully documented experiments and observations? I don't follow.

Does the scientific method apply in all cases, everywhere, to demarcate science from non-science?

No, one can apply the scientific method to everyday life. But you cannot have a science which does not apply this method.

The underlying premise is that a particular topic under study follows a repeatable testable pattern.

I guess that pretty much disqualifies every historical science, unless you have seen any cambrian explosions lately.

Are you serious or are you just playing with language?

The cambrian explosion is not a scientific theory. It is a period in earths natural history, the fossils from which can act as peices of evidence for a theory. ie.observation.

It's not science that it rained last year, the science is in cataloging the days it rains and keeping track of the annual rainfall in order to detect a pattern. Thus leading to the possibility of predicting the rainfall for subsequent years.

It's not science that Alexander the great conquered the known world in his short lifespan. Perhaps the study of human organization and patterns of power dispersal after his death can be the basis of a scientific theory. Drawing on this as a case study, among other similar periods in history such as the death of Genghis Kahn and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, other cases can be used as test to validate or invlidate such theories.

Do you equate repeatability with law?

No but I do think it is a requirement for scientific testing. It would be hard to tell if yellow and blue makes green if the results are always different.

We went over the origin of the method. The point is that it was not enough to make a conclusion based on observation, we have to go back and test the conclusions.

Where did we go over the origin of the method? Who came up with it and when? Why did they? Has it stayed the same since the original definition?

Here. And no, as in all human endeavors the definitions of words change. Also bear in mind that the general population tends to blur the definition of science. But all in all the process is what leads to discoveries. Methodically testing every combination will ultimately lead to something, don't you agree?

August wrote:

Quote:
No observation is direct.

You are going to have to explain that to me.

Quote:
Everything from what we see to what we touch is ultimately an indirect inference.

C'mon Bgood, play along. Repeating back to me what you said in other words is not an explanation.

We don't actually see a flower what we think of as seeing is the brains interpretation of the light waves bouncing off the flower back to our eyes. We then interpret it as a flower because of previous exposure to the idea of a flower.

I was under the impression we have both direct and indirect observation. Isn't observation just the gathering of data, and that the inferences start when we come up with hypothesis?

You are mostly correct, but some methods of observation required at one time for inferences to be made to make sence of those observations. For instance sonograms. Originally when the concept was new and experimental the "image" was an inference of electrical signals and was not seen as a method of observation.

What do you mean by inference if it doesn't mean interpretation? Can you see radio signals? There needs to be some sort of deductive inference to interpret the radio signals.
This is not visible with the naked eye.

As I said above, there are both direct and indirect observations. The observation of radio waves can be termed inference, since we observe the unobservable in terms of the observable. We also have geologists who can directly observe rock formations, and there is no need for inference. If we had no observable phenomena, we could not observe anything, because we would have nothing to infer against.

I don't think we disagree too much here?

Simply finding rock layers is not an observation. At least not any longer. Examining the strata and dating it by using index fossils or argon/argon dating technique are also observations. These require further inference than simply biologic ones.

Give me an example of an abductive inference.

Abductive inference is the inference or reasoning to the best explanation. It is widely used in medical diagnostics, for example, but also in speech recognition etc.

That is not a form of observation then is it? This would fall under hypothesis, and testable one's at that.

In order to make these sort of inferences one needs to have a frame of reference, no? A catalog of knowledge showing that such inferences can be dependable. In other words observations.

Here is an example that you may enjoy.
"Abductive Inference of Genetic Networks"
http://magix.fri.uni-lj.si/Blaz/papers/ ... 0inference'

I don't think anyone would consider this as an observation.
This would fall under application, like a weather computer using previous results and observations to try and predict weather paterns.

However in this case the tool seems to be more reliable.
=)

Initially this is a result of science not a foundation. As it becomes more proven and reliable then it will become another source for observations.

[August]

Can we now say that your defnition of science is:

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

It's the body of knowledge accumulated by the application of the method.

In that case:

Is science scientific? Using your argument above, the definition of science cannot stand up to its own requirements.

How so? Are you asking us to test a method? Should I have formed a hypothesis for using hypothesis before I can formulate a hypothesis? I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

You proposed a method for determining whether something is science or not. I then asked you to apply the method to science, which you said could not be done. By your reasoning then we cannot know if science is scientific, since the method cannot give an outcome in this case. But by definition (arrived through philosophical reasoning) science is scientific, yet the method that you proposed falis to prove that.

The point is that methodological demarcations, even at a general level, are prone to failure. If we get into specifics, as we have started to discuss lower down, for example the differences in observation, then the application of methodology as demarcation gets even weaker.

That also covers the point about astrologers and psychics, even though they claim to use the scientific method, I don't think that the application of the method qualifies it as science.

(In case you want to argue that they don't do it right, see here: http://www.astrology-research.net ).

We don't actually see a flower what we think of as seeing is the brains interpretation of the light waves bouncing off the flower back to our eyes. We then interpret it as a flower because of previous exposure to the idea of a flower.

I understand what you are saying, but I think we previously agreed that even the most atheistic scientist has to have faith in some things, among others the reliability of his observational powers. I don't disagree with you, but if we are to go down this road it may lead to radical skepticism, how can we ever know what we observe is a valid reflection of reality?

The cambrian explosion is not a scientific theory. It is a period in earths natural history, the fossils from which can act as peices of evidence for a theory. ie.observation.

I did not propose that it was a scientific theory. The point was that for the historical sciences repated experimentation is virtually impossible since the conditions which existed at the time of the phenomena does not exist any more. Even though we can observe the remnants, we cannot experimentally repeat what happened, simply because the conditions do not exist any more.

No but I do think it is a requirement for scientific testing.

See my post above, and what you wrote, this seems to contradict the necessity of repeatability, especially in the case of rare or one-off sets of conditions. We can attempt to interpret the evidence in light of theories and even hypothesis, but we cannot experimentally confirm it.

Here. And no, as in all human endeavors the definitions of words change. Also bear in mind that the general population tends to blur the definition of science. But all in all the process is what leads to discoveries. Methodically testing every combination will ultimately lead to something, don't you agree?

I honestly do not see where we went over the history of science there. You mentioned the Greeks there, who started the process with critical thinking, and then mention the addition of experimentation as necessary. It was Descarte, Bacon and later Popper who contributed to the history of science. I am especially interested in the development of scientific philosophy in the late 1800's to now.

You are mostly correct, but some methods of observation required at one time for inferences to be made to make sence of those observations. For instance sonograms. Originally when the concept was new and experimental the "image" was an inference of electrical signals and was not seen as a method of observation.

Mostly correct? I am 100% corrct. I don't think we disagree here, there are different types of observation, some need to be interpreted in the context of known phenomena.

Simply finding rock layers is not an observation.

Again, this is not what I said. You really have to read more carefully.

Examining the strata...

Direct observation, because it is physically observable, and that is the point. We can physically observe certain phenomena, and others we cannot.

That is not a form of observation then is it? This would fall under hypothesis, and testable one's at that.

Sigh. Would you rather just debate yourself?

I said:

What do you mean by observation? Is science subject to the directly observable alone? Or can it include abductive inferences?

You said:

and dating it by using index fossils or argon/argon dating technique are also observations. These require further inference than simply biologic ones.

Once again, the definition of abductive inference is reasoning to the best explanation. This is exactly what your geologist does in the example above. Apart from his direct identification of the strata, he inferred the best possible approximation of the age of the strata through other methods. That is abductive inference. That is also what you did in your example of the Cambrian above. That is what the Russians did with their tool in the example I sent you.

But it did prove my point, there is inference, even in the observation stages.

Let's get back to the scientific validity of ID based on this next time.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Can we now say that your defnition of science is:

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

It's the body of knowledge accumulated by the application of the method.

In that case:

You proposed a method for determining whether something is science or not. I then asked you to apply the method to science, which you said could not be done.

No you asked me to apply the scientific method to the scientific method. You can definitely apply this definition to something like Chemistry.

Does chemistry consist of theories based on observations? Yes
Are there theories the result of countless experients? Yes
Can I use these theories to predict future results(Another way of testing the theory)? Yes

By your reasoning then we cannot know if science is scientific, since the method cannot give an outcome in this case. But by definition (arrived through philosophical reasoning) science is scientific, yet the method that you proposed falis to prove that.

I still don't understand what you are trying to say.
=(

(In case you want to argue that they don't do it right, see here: http://www.astrology-research.net ).

As I stated you can apply the scientific method, but is the body of knowledge a result of experimentation? Did the discovery of the ability to forcast events come from experimentation? I doubt it.

We don't actually see a flower what we think of as seeing is the brains interpretation of the light waves bouncing off the flower back to our eyes. We then interpret it as a flower because of previous exposure to the idea of a flower.

I understand what you are saying, but I think we previously agreed that even the most atheistic scientist has to have faith in some things, among others the reliability of his observational powers. I don't disagree with you, but if we are to go down this road it may lead to radical skepticism, how can we ever know what we observe is a valid reflection of reality?

By having others repeat the experiment. Be realistic no scientist has such levels of skepticism.

The cambrian explosion is not a scientific theory. It is a period in earths natural history, the fossils from which can act as peices of evidence for a theory. ie.observation.

I did not propose that it was a scientific theory. The point was that for the historical sciences repated experimentation is virtually impossible since the conditions which existed at the time of the phenomena does not exist any more.

Wrong. Testing of a hypothesis can take many forms. For example the fishpod found recently fit into a predicted time period with predicted features. Pottery found in an archaelogical dig can be used to verify the time period of a find through comparative analysis and carbonn dating.
The theory being tested here is that potery of a certain kind was created during a specific period. Carbon dating verifies or disproves this theory.

Even though we can observe the remnants, we cannot experimentally repeat what happened, simply because the conditions do not exist any more.

We can compare events, and we can see paterns of development which still do occur today. Like an observation of a supernovae can be used to create a theory for lifecycle of a star.

No but I do think it is a requirement for scientific testing.

See my post above, and what you wrote, this seems to contradict the necessity of repeatability, especially in the case of rare or one-off sets of conditions. We can attempt to interpret the evidence in light of theories and even hypothesis, but we cannot experimentally confirm it.

Give me an example of a theory I cannot experimentally confirm.

That is not a form of observation then is it? This would fall under hypothesis, and testable one's at that.

Sigh. Would you rather just debate yourself?

I said:

What do you mean by observation? Is science subject to the directly observable alone? Or can it include abductive inferences?

You said:

and dating it by using index fossils or argon/argon dating technique are also observations. These require further inference than simply biologic ones.

Once again, the definition of abductive inference is reasoning to the best explanation. This is exactly what your geologist does in the example above. Apart from his direct identification of the strata, he inferred the best possible approximation of the age of the strata through other methods. That is abductive inference. That is also what you did in your example of the Cambrian above. That is what the Russians did with their tool in the example I sent you.

But it did prove my point, there is inference, even in the observation stages.

Let's get back to the scientific validity of ID based on this next time.

You ignored the rest of my post, such inferences cannot be considerd as an observation until tested. For example the strata can be dated using index fossils, but this will not be a reliable test until it is shown that this is a reliable method. For instance using argon/argon testing at other sites to verify the date.

Then it is no longer abductive but deductive as a series of observations lead to a general rule. Then in turn this general rule is applied to a specific case.

The process used to approximate the age of the strata is deductive not inductive.

So when I determine that the ball fell from the roof due to gravity this is abductive inference? I don't agree at all.

[August]

You know, Bgood, this discussion is getting pretty pointless because you are doing your usual stepping around issues. The reason I keep asking for a definition of science is not to argue, but to to try and arrive at a point where we can discuss the scientific status of ID, based on a definition of science that is logically consistent. You seem to want to dispute even my clarifying questions and statements.

This all started with me asking:

What is science? What demarcates science from non-science, and why?

and your answer here was:

Let's go over the scientific method again.

and elsewhere:

Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.

It's the body of knowledge accumulated by the application of the method.

For you to claim now that you somehow distinguished between the scientific method and the definition of science is a cop-out. I asked for a definition and you gave it. All I asked is that we then apply your definition to science as an overall discipline.

Anyhow, if the method is not the defnition of science, then what is it?

As I stated you can apply the scientific method, but is the body of knowledge a result of experimentation? Did the discovery of the ability to forcast events come from experimentation? I doubt it.

Did you read the link? They claim to all of those things.

By having others repeat the experiment. Be realistic no scientist has such levels of skepticism.

Repeated experimentation has nothing to do with what you said. If you cannot rely on your general powers of observation, then how do you know that the repeated experiments are giving a reliable result, or is the result just the same illusion? You have just moved the problem, not gotten rid of it.

Wrong. Testing of a hypothesis can take many forms. For example the fishpod found recently fit into a predicted time period with predicted features. Pottery found in an archaelogical dig can be used to verify the time period of a find through comparative analysis and carbonn dating.
The theory being tested here is that potery of a certain kind was created during a specific period. Carbon dating verifies or disproves this theory.

Is fitting something into a prediction experimentation? And dating is experimentation that fully confirms the theory? Just want to be sure.

So you are saying that we can see observable results from unobservable causes?

We can compare events, and we can see paterns of development which still do occur today. Like an observation of a supernovae can be used to create a theory for lifecycle of a star. Give me an example of a theory I cannot experimentally confirm.

Right, but that is not all that rare. The big bang or the emergence of life, or the cambrian explosion are rare or one-time events where we cannot compare to regular occurring phenomena, and we cannot experimentally repeat since the conditions at the time are unknown or do not exist any more. That is why we compare to what we do know, and arrive at hypothesis and theories through (gasp) both inductive and abductive inference.

You ignored the rest of my post, such inferences cannot be considerd as an observation until tested. For example the strata can be dated using index fossils, but this will not be a reliable test until it is shown that this is a reliable method. For instance using argon/argon testing at other sites to verify the date.

I did not ignore anything, it was just not relevant to the point. I don't know what you are misunderstanding here. If you arrive at several possible explanations, one of those explanations are likely to best explain the observation. Arriving at that best explanation for the specific case is called abductive reasoning, and the result is an abductive inference.

Then it is no longer abductive but deductive as a series of observations lead to a general rule. Then in turn this general rule is applied to a specific case.

Uh, no. That would be induction. Let's argue.

So when I determine that the ball fell from the roof due to gravity this is abductive inference? I don't agree at all.

How many feasible possible scientific explanations do you have for that scenario? How about a medical condition, where there can be several possible explanations, and you have to arrive at the best possible explanation for a specific condition? What is that called?

[August]

Edit: I also want to ask this, what is the purpose of calling some theories scientific, and others not?

The critical thinking required by science is a valuable skill in certain sectors of the public and of the government. This is why it is crucial to demarcate the hard sciences from the other fields so that schools such as MIT and Stanford can make sure that they admit highly analytical students who are willing to be critical of all things. An abililty to understand that one can never be certain is the halmark of critical thinking.

Of course in the government sector they want people to be critical of all things except for the government.
lol

The advancement of science is based purely on new discoveries and a willingness to accept that which may go against one's own preconceptions. Many major discoveries are counter intuitive and requires a fresh perspective in order to make sence of it.

This is not to say that one cannot have personal beleifs, but one must be willing to admit that these beleifs no matter one's own convictions does not stand up to scrutiny in another's worldview, analytically speaking of course.

So the purpose behind distinguishing science from non-science is to ensure that we have good enrollment policies to colleges?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

So the purpose behind distinguishing science from non-science is to ensure that we have good enrollment policies to colleges?

No it's to ensure that we don't confuse young students by giving them two different standards for the definition of science.

Science must maintain it's strict application of the scientific method. This will keep the U.S. competitive.