An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Armoured]

I know what you mean, but that's not strictly true; the hypothesis or theory is formulated to explain some observations (which you could call evidence), but then you have to look for evidence to support it or confirm its predictions.

Broad strokes guy. I'm trying not to confuse people who aren't that familiar with methodology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not necessarily. What's the "prior evidence" that supports string theory?

It's the evidence that quantum mechanics and General Relativity, while both correct in their relevant domains, do not play nice together, suggesting that a theory of quantum gravity may be necessary to integrate them. String theory is an attempt to construct a theory that includes quantum gravity (and provides a complete and consistent theory of the structure of the universe, a 'Theory of Everything'). Ambitious perhaps, but who knows?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Broad strokes guy. I'm trying not to confuse people who aren't that familiar with methodology.

Fair enough, within reasonable limits

 

[Michael]

It's the evidence that quantum mechanics and General Relativity, while both correct in their relevant domains, do not play nice together,

Er, who says that they *have* to play "nice" together?

suggesting that a theory of quantum gravity may be necessary to integrate them.

Even that doesn't *necessitate* string theory.

String theory is an attempt to construct a theory that includes quantum gravity (and provides a complete and consistent theory of the structure of the universe, a 'Theory of Everything'). Ambitious perhaps, but who knows?

But you made a *gigantic* leap of faith between a desire for a quantum definition of gravity, to a theory that requires "faith" in multiple extra dimensions of spacetime! Holy smokes! Talk about a giant leap of faith!

How did you expect to falsify that idea, and or what are it's *unique* "predictions"? Did you "cheat first" by using "observation" to create "predictions", or did the predictions just naturally fall out of it? Hint: I already know that string theory can be made to do almost anything and everything you might wish it to do with all those extra dimensions of spacetime.

 

[Michael]

It's the evidence that quantum mechanics and General Relativity, while both correct in their relevant domains, do not play nice together, suggesting that a theory of quantum gravity may be necessary to integrate them.

Here's what I mean with respect to QM definitions (derivations) of gravity theory. We don't need multiple extra dimensions to come up with a QM definition of gravity. This one is pretty interesting IMO:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - How gravity can be derived from quantum physics

The downside of course is that you end up deriving Newton's equations for gravity, not GR.

 

[durangodawood]

..."Wow! Show me,please?"
"Nah, I left it in my other pants.....

That would be the worst. Life changing information missed because someone put on the wrong trousers!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd like to know which specific chemical processes he believes gives rise to awareness in something like a slime mold, which is apparently capable of making "intelligent" choices.

https://phys.org/news/2016-06-slime-mold-insight-intelligence-neuron-less.html

...While the biological substrate of the algorithm remains to be identified...

It's not known yet.

Also, the article doesn't mention anything about slime mold having "awareness".

 

[Radrook]

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. But argument from incredulity is not evidence.

The only one vehemently arguing from incredulity in this matter is you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The only arguing from incredulity in this matter is you.

Argument from incredulity. It seems that it doesn't mean what you think it means......

 

[Radrook]

Why do you assume? Beyond claims of "it's obvious" where's the proof?

Funny how this modus operandi fits right in with the description.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Er, who says that they *have* to play "nice" together?



Even that doesn't *necessitate* string theory.



But you made a *gigantic* leap of faith between a desire for a quantum definition of gravity, to a theory that requires "faith" in multiple extra dimensions of spacetime! Holy smokes! Talk about a giant leap of faith!

How did you expect to falsify that idea, and or what are it's *unique* "predictions"? Did you "cheat first" by using "observation" to create "predictions", or did the predictions just naturally fall out of it? Hint: I already know that string theory can be made to do almost anything and everything you might wish it to do with all those extra dimensions of spacetime.

You speak as if string theory is @FrumiousBandersnatch 's invention and/or that he accepts it as nothing short of fact.

Nothing he has posted here, seems to even hint at that.

So it looks like you are twisting reality again, simply so you can start ranting about your obsession again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Funny how this modus operandi fits right in with the description.
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

From that article:

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply pig-headedly refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.

Emphasis, mine.

Before @evoeth can engage in that fallacy, you would actually have to give some evidence for him to ignore.

 

[Larniavc]

You know, if I was trying to convince someone they were wrong, and I had evidence, you wouldn't have to work this hard to get me to show it. But these guys, every time. "I have evidence that proves ID (or creationism) is right and evolution is wrong"
"Wow! Show me,please?"
"Nah, I left it in my other pants. AND YOU'RE A BAD PERSON FOR ASKING! You don't believe in it, so I'm not going to show you!"

That's why I don't respond to Radrook: he's already admitted to not being able to explain some of the things he links to.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, you honestly admitted that you don't consider anything which is part of nature as capable of displaying intelligent design.

That's not what he wrote. Try again.

 

[KCfromNC]

But they don't build brains do they?

Correct. Brains are not made of soap bubbles. Any other questions?

 

[KCfromNC]

It is nonsensical to say that chemicals build brains all by themselves without anyone having arranged the sequences which lead to the formation of a brain.

What's nonsensical is assuming that whatever led to the formation of brains had to be an "anyone". Seems too specific given the lack of information we have on how the laws of chemistry arose.

 

[Armoured]

That's why I don't respond to Radrook: he's already admitted to not being able to explain some of the things he links to.

I was trying to give him a fair chance. If someone claims to have evidence of ID, I'll always take their claim in good faith and ask them to show it. I try to treat others as I'd want to be treated in the circumstance that I had extraordinary evidence.

Of course, once the "there's evidence, but I don't have to show you because... HEY LOOK! SQUIRREL!" tapdance starts, my natural cynicism takes over.

 

[Armoured]

The only one vehemently arguing from incredulity in this matter is you.

When'd I do that? Do you know what "an argument from incredulity" is? I don't think I've made an argument, vehemently or otherwise. Mostly I've just asked for evidence that you said exists, but you have so far failed to provide.

 

[Radrook]

When'd I do that? Do you know what "an argument from incredulity" is? I don't think I've made an argument, vehemently or otherwise. Mostly I've just asked for evidence that you said exists, but you have so far failed to provide.

You accused me of arguing from incredulity.
Please describe in detail how the following definition describes my approach to this subject?

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

 

[durangodawood]

So.. where the evidence?