What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[plindboe]

Thank you for finally admitting that my original observation about the tree, which was an accurate representation of the actual state of things, is not falsifiable.

That's the exact opposite of what I said.

I've tried my best to explain. If you don't want to get it, I can't help.

I guess you don't see your own equivocation here. Your parenthetical refers to possibilities that a reasonable person would naturally have taken into account before conducting the "test", while only a loon would think it could fall up.

One will try to account for possibilities, but there might be unforseen possibilities that one hasn't thought of. And yes, only a loon would think that, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a logical possibility.

A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction.​

So you see no logical contradiction between these two:

The tree exists.

The tree may not exist.​

Have I got that about right?

I do. But since absolute knowledge doesn't exist in science "the tree exists" should be "we're pretty confident, but not absolutely certain that the tree exists".

You seem intent on misunderstanding though, so I think I'll use my time on something else.

Peter

 

[Hespera]

Well some people think that if they give a inch on anything their whole construct of reality will come apart.

Perhaps that is what happened to Neanderthal.

 

[gaara4158]

I can hardly show you what you do not wish to see, but anthropic evolution and anthropogenic global warming certainly fit the bill.

So you're prepared to argue that there is absolutely no evidence for either of these, and should there appear evidence to the contrary, we'll still believe in them? You've got a lot to learn...

I most certainly do.

Nobody has that. Don't feel bad, I don't either.

Then the ability to be absolutely certain must be better.

And I have it.

No, you just think you have it. Once you turn... say, sixteen, you'll start to realize you could be wrong.

Obviously it's rhetorically convenient to do so.

Seriously. I don't care whether I exist or not; it feels like I do, so what's the difference? Assuming that I exist hasn't gotten me into any trouble thus far.

Non sequitur. The worst that could happen if you didn't is that you would die, or have your existence terminated...which you have just declared irrelevant.

Wrong. If I never existed, then my existence can't be terminated, because what's there to terminate? We're talking about whether or not I exist at the moment, not whether I care if my (assumed) existence is terminated now. I have no control over my existence, so why worry about it?

Why a person would publicly admit to knowing absolutely nothing is an interesting question.

Why a person would equivocate not knowing everything to knowing absolutely nothing is an interesting question.
It's true that I don't know anything with a 100% certainty. I do know things, however, with a 99.9% certainty, and that's enough to bet your big toe on
I've dealt with many like you, yguy, who don't know the difference between 0% and 99%. I suggest you finish grade school.

You can't do that if you actually live according to your stated beliefs, because you have to second guess yourself every minute.

Again, 99% certainty rarely ever calls for a second guess. Assuming you know everything 100% is far less responsible, because when you question nothing, you're a pawn. Think about it. You only question evolution because you're told it contradicts your holy scriptures. If you were told it was compatible, you'd defend it to the death. You really have no mind of your own.

I don't.

Yeah, you do. Sad.

 

[Naraoia]

It seemed a reasonable inference from what you DID say.

Umm, how?

We're not talking about testability, but about falsifiability per the wiki definition cited earlier, which requires that it's logically possible to prove the proposition false - which you can't if you know it's true. What anyone imagines would be the case if it weren't is then irrelevant.

I refer you again to the definition of logical possibility. Specifically, this:

Thus, "the sky is blue" (and all other actually true propositions) is logically possible: there exists some logically coherent way for the world to be such that it is true, viz., the way that the world actually is. But this "way for the world to be" need not be the way the world actually is; it need only be logically coherent. So, for example, the false proposition the sky is green is also logically possible, so long as we are able (as we indeed seem to be) to conceive of some logically coherent world in which the sky is green.

SOMETHING DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE TO BE LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.

It can even contradict what is actually true. *gasp shock horror*

Look, here is how it works, as I understand it:

"The tree is there" is true, and therefore, logically possible.

"The tree is NOT there" is not true but still logically possible (there could be a logically consistent world in which it was true).

"The tree is there AND the tree is NOT there" is, on the other hand, not logically possible (A and ~A can't be simultaneously true in a logically consistent world)

Do us a favour and try to grasp that. It's not that difficult.

Hardly. To claim that because we observe adaptation changes accumulate over time that would lead from lower primates to humans is like claiming that because you can write macros for Word you can write all the software for a shuttle launch. The only reason evolutionists are able to get people to buy into such a preposterous extrapolation is that the consequences of doing so are not immediately apparent to most people.

Huh, get off the high horse, I can't see that far up. And you have no reason to be up there until you back up your claims anyway.

Just seeing small-scale adaptation is far from the only reason common descent is accepted. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the paper ?shernren found was precisely about testing whether the "preposterous extrapolation" from microevolutionary processes can be made or something different is at work on larger scales.

So please humour us and explain how the evidence for common descent that does not rely on the observation of ongoing, small-scale evolutionary processes (fossils, ERVs, chromosome fusions, phylogenies, homologous structures, the genetic code, what have you, I'm sure you've heard of them) is "preposterous".

Had you said that to begin with this conversation might never have taken place. What you said at first was that the truth or falsity of a proposition was irrelevant to its falsifiability.

Which is exactly what he said the second time.

I can hardly show you what you do not wish to see, but anthropic evolution and anthropogenic global warming certainly fit the bill.

What in the world is anthropic evolution?

Why a person would publicly admit to knowing absolutely nothing is an interesting question.

Honesty?

I think a course in theory of knowledge would benefit you greatly.

 

[yguy]

That's the exact opposite of what I said.

That you fail to understand the implications of what you said is hardly my problem.

I've tried my best to explain.

Explaining that which makes no sense is always problematic.

absolute knowledge doesn't exist in science

Then neither does falsifiability, since nothing can be proven false except with respect to what is known to be true.

You seem intent on misunderstanding

On the contrary, I understand you so well it's scary.

 

[yguy]

So you're prepared to argue that there is absolutely no evidence for either of these,

I'm not in the habit of defending propositions I've never made, as desperately as my opponents may hope I would.

and should there appear evidence to the contrary, we'll still believe in them?

As far as anthropic evolution is concerned, that evidence has been around for quite some time. No other species devolves within its own lifetime, and it hardly makes sense that eons of evolutionary progress would manifest such an effect.

Why a person would [equate] not knowing everything to knowing absolutely nothing is an interesting question.

I suppose it would be if someone around here had done such a thing.

It's true that I don't know anything with a 100% certainty. I do know things, however, with a 99.9% certainty,

There is no such thing.

I've dealt with many like you, yguy,

Trust me, youngster, you haven't dealt with any like me.

You only question evolution because you're told it contradicts your holy scriptures.

Perhaps you've heard it said that it's best to know your enemy. Believe me, you don't.

 

[yguy]

SOMETHING DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE TO BE LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.

It can even contradict what is actually true.

I never said anything different. What you're leaving out, just like the others, is knowledge, which in this case preempts the logical possibility of falsity, and the existence of which I suppose I can now reasonably expect you to deny.

Do us a favour and try to grasp that.

Did that way before I got here.

Just seeing small-scale adaptation is far from the only reason common descent is accepted. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the paper ?shernren found was precisely about testing whether the "preposterous extrapolation" from microevolutionary processes can be made or something different is at work on larger scales.

The end product of experiments that lasted hundreds of thousands of years, I trust?

So please humour us and explain how the evidence for common descent ... is "preposterous".

You do know the difference between evidence and extrapolation, right?

What in the world is anthropic evolution?

That's my term for the evolution of man from lower species.

Honesty?

Just the opposite. He claims no one can know anything so he can claim I don't know anything, which would mean I can't know he's wrong.

I think a course in theory of knowledge would benefit you greatly.

Well I suppose it would be amusing to see a professor tearing his hair out...

 

[gaara4158]

I'm not in the habit of defending propositions I've never made, as desperately as my opponents may hope I would.

You referred to anthropic evolution and anthropogenic global warming as "sacred cows" of science. Sacred cows are things held holy for no reason, also known as dogmas (beliefs that are not affected by any kind of evidence). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by these two examples anymore, if you're calling them sacred cows.

As far as anthropic evolution is concerned, that evidence has been around for quite some time. No other species devolves within its own lifetime, and it hardly makes sense that eons of evolutionary progress would manifest such an effect.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by anthropic evolution.

I suppose it would be if someone around here had done such a thing.

"Knowing nothing" has the connotation of cluelessness. I know that's probably not what you mean, but forgive me for being jaded enough to foresee you using my statement "I know nothing" against me in the future.

There is no such thing.

There's no such thing as absolute certainty. You can't know everything, and you can't know anything for sure unless you know everything for sure. You just have to settle for a high degree of certainty; it works just as well most of the time.

Trust me, youngster, you haven't dealt with any like me.

I remember being exactly like you. The creationist ego can get so big...

Perhaps you've heard it said that it's best to know your enemy. Believe me, you don't.

We're enemies? I should hope not... We've barely met each other, and we hardly know anything about each other other than our views on ID. We're opponents in this particular discussion, but enemies? I think not.
You don't have to believe me, but I've argued with plenty of people with arguments just like yours. You're heading towards the presuppositionalist argument, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[MoonLancer]

For a scientific hypothesis to be valid, it must be falsifiable, this is a very basic tenet of science. The method of falsifying a hypothesis is to make predictions based upon it, and then build experiments around those predictions to test them, this is the foundation of scientific experimentation. So given this I ask: What scientific predictions does Intelligent Design make?

For extra credit: How can this prediction be falsified scientifically?

This is the original post. This is not a trick question from the gotcha media. ID clearly not a scientific pursuit given that its defenders remarks have spread across almost 20 pages with no answers to this question.

epic fail

It other words, soundly defeated.

 

[yguy]

You referred to anthropic evolution and anthropogenic global warming as "sacred cows" of science. Sacred cows are things held holy for no reason,

Not quite. They are believed in for no good reason...and no amount of schooling can teach you how to tell the good from the bad.

"Knowing nothing" has the connotation of cluelessness. I know that's probably not what you mean,

What I mean is what I said; nothing more and nothing less.

There's no such thing as absolute certainty.

And you're absolutely certain of that, I suppose.

You can't know everything, and you can't know anything for sure unless you know everything for sure.

What else do you figure I have to know to know I exist?

We're enemies?

As long as in my presence you continue to try to make nonsense make sense, yes.

You don't have to believe me, but I've argued with plenty of people with arguments just like yours.

You really have no idea who you're messing with.

You're heading towards the presuppositionalist argument, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know what that is, and at the moment I don't need to. As for where I'm going, I don't have a game plan. I can tell you, however, that I never lose.

 

[gaara4158]

Not quite. They are believed in for no good reason...and no amount of schooling can teach you how to tell the good from the bad.

"Good" and "bad" are not appropriate words to use in science; they're subjective. Use words like "valid" and "invalid," which are much less vague and much more objective.

What I mean is what I said; nothing more and nothing less.

Well, forgive me for reading more into it than was there.

What else do you figure I have to know to know I exist?

Everything. The fact is, you don't have to know anything to function in life. A high degree of certainty based on facts evidence works just fine.

As long as in my presence you continue to try to make nonsense make sense, yes.

Please, I beg you, point out my nonsense. I can be a very nasty enemy.

You really have no idea who you're messing with.

[Whom]
I'm sure it's an honor.
Again with the ego and and excessive use of emoticons. Very professional, very effective.

I don't know what that is, and at the moment I don't need to. As for where I'm going, I don't have a game plan. I can tell you, however, that I never lose.

And yet another cheeky display of ego punctuated by yet another emoticon. How droll.

 

[Athrond]

Blah blah blah...

How about we get back to the topic rather than indulging in this meaningless sophistry?
If you guys want to discuss philosophy head to the "darn" philosophy section.

I would agree that ID does not qualify as a falsifiable hypothesis. It's not a hypothesis because it's an observation of the obvious, and it's not falsifiable because it's true.

yguy: why do you think that ID is an observation of the obvious, and why makes you think that it is true?

No word games please - I'm not interested.

 

[Split Rock]

I can tell you, however, that I never lose.

I suppose you mean that you never admit to losing.... unless you are God... are you God?

 

[gaara4158]

I would agree that ID does not qualify as a falsifiable hypothesis. It's not a hypothesis because it's an observation of the obvious, and it's not falsifiable because it's true.

1. Actually, observation points to evolution.
2. You do realize by now that being falsifiable doesn't make things false, right?

 

[yguy]

"Good" and "bad" are not appropriate words to use in science; they're subjective.

No, they aren't, because scientists are just as human as anyone else. Thus they are subject to biases that they may not be aware of, and believing anything under the influence of such a bias is obviously bad.

Everything.

Yeah, well I don't know everything and I know for sure that I exist.

So put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

The fact is, you don't have to know anything to function in life.

I can definitely feature a teenager saying something like that.

Please, I beg you, point out my nonsense.

I've hardly been doing anything else.

I can be a very nasty enemy.

I very much doubt that you can get anywhere near as nasty as the people I've ticked off on unmoderated boards, so I wouldn't waste energy revving up my nasty engine were I you.

I'm sure it's an honor.

Again, don't read so much into it.

Again with the ego and and excessive use of emoticons. Very professional, very effective.


And yet another cheeky display of ego punctuated by yet another emoticon. How droll.

Word to the wise: the moment you get angry at your opponent, you've lost the battle.

 

[yguy]

yguy: why do you think that ID is an observation of the obvious,

There is no way for me to convey that information to anyone else. Either it's in you to see it or not.

and [what] makes you think that it is true?

If you've ever rebuilt an engine, you probably came across some part and wondered what it was there for, because you knew it was there by design. Why, then, when you look at the structure of the atom, do you not know that the electrons occupy their various orbitals by design?

 

[yguy]

I suppose you mean that you never admit to losing.... unless you are God... are you God?

You don't have to be anywhere close to being God to make that claim. You don't even have to be right about everything, for that matter.

 

[ragarth]

This is the original post. This is not a trick question from the gotcha media. ID clearly not a scientific pursuit given that its defenders remarks have spread across almost 20 pages with no answers to this question.

epic fail

It other words, soundly defeated.

There were some good attempts in the beginning, the thread kinda died and came back, now yguy is just trolling the thread.

 

[gaara4158]

No, they aren't, because scientists are just as human as anyone else. Thus they are subject to biases that they may not be aware of, and believing anything under the influence of such a bias is obviously bad.

We've now completely digressed from the actual issue of intelligent design. Was this your goal?

Yeah, well I don't know everything and I know for sure that I exist.

So put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

Slow down, old chap. I completely believe that you have absolute faith in your existence. I, too, may be guilty of having faith fill in the small percentage of uncertainty that I have.
However, I must contend that you don't know for certain that you exist. If you do... please tell me how you know.

I can definitely feature a teenager saying something like that.

Ah, in come the adhoms.

I've hardly been doing anything else.

You've been gradually pushing this discussion in the direction of philosophy, and away from science. I love debating philosophy as much as the next guy, but we're derailing the thread.

I very much doubt that you can get anywhere near as nasty as the people I've ticked off on unmoderated boards, so I wouldn't waste energy revving up my nasty engine were I you.

Oh, that's a different kind of nasty. While I'm perfectly capable of insulting you, I much prefer defeating you on the actual points in question. It makes it so you can't come back with that point without being dishonest, you know? So by nasty, I mean I pretty much take away all your points, leaving you with nothing.

Word to the wise: the moment you get angry at your opponent, you've lost the battle.

Your motives are pretty transparent; you can't beat me on the issues, so you hope to make me beat myself by making me angry. I think it's time for you to rethink your approach.

 

[shernren]

Ahhh. The trollhunt is on.

yguy: why do you think that ID is an observation of the obvious ...

There is no way for me to convey that information to anyone else. Either it's in you to see it or not.

Right. Have a think about the logical consequences of that statement, will you?

Either there is a way for you to convey information about why ID is obvious to other people, or there is not.

If there is not, then what are you doing here? By your own admission you cannot convey evidence for the obviousness of intelligent design to anyone else. That "anyone else" is a universal quantifier. You are admitting that it has nothing to do with, for example, our putative bias towards evolution, or how educated we are, or the fact that we recognize hundreds of pieces of evidence for evolution. Why, Dembski himself is part of your "anyone else", and you wouldn't be able to tell him why ID is obvious.

So firstly - if you can't, why bother? Forum participation is about nothing but communication. Why bother trying to talk to people and then saying "Hey, I'm obviously right, and I can't tell you why"? If you can't tell us why your viewpoint is obvious then by your own admission this is all a waste of your time and ours.

Secondly, this is the very epitome of an unfalsifiable statement. "It's obvious, and I can't tell you why" - in other words, "I can't really give you any evidence that I'm right, so you could never give me any evidence that I'm wrong". You have precisely demonstrated the point of this thread.

Have you ever met a paranoid schizophrenic? I haven't, but I can guess how one would behave. To him, it is obvious that the entire world is out to get him. Freaking obvious. Somebody hostile is obviously out to get him. If somebody is nice to him, then she is obviously trying to falsely gain his trust so that she can later get him. If somebody ignores him, then she is obviously trying to get his guard down so that she can later get him. "The world is out to get me" becomes an unfalsifiable statement, one that is held to be true regardless of any and every possible piece of counterevidence found in the physical universe.

"It's obvious, but I couldn't tell you why" sounds paranoid schizophrenic to me. Now tell me, why are they considered mentally unstable?