What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[ragarth]

And I would do all that when I already knew the tree is there because...?

Why did astronauts drop a hammer and a feather on the moon? It was both symbolic and the ultimate test of Galileo's theories. We had an almost complete expectation that it would succeed, but we did it anyway. If it had have failed... well, that would have been big! Why do scientists repeat the work of other scientists? Science is a practice of repetition ad absurdium.

Science works by testing what we assume to be true, and no scientist worth his marble jar is going to claim that they know something is absolutely, unequivocally true beyond any doubt of being proven wrong. Just because you think something is true does not make it so, this is a major tenet of science, and why science holds no sacred cows.

I think it's a lot more likely that one of us is unable to find fault with either.

I fail to understand this sentence, elaborate, please.

Exactly. You took what I said and dishonestly turned it into something that fits your preconception.

Okay, I challenge you to elaborate on this and show beyond any doubt here that I am being dishonest.

And neither have I said anything different.

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.

Yeah, when you don't know if a proposition is true or not.

So if there IS a tree, you'd have a way of knowing there ISN'T a tree?

Sure, you can conduct all kinds of unnecessary tests, but the ability to do so hardly makes the observation falsifiable by your definition.

According to the definition you cited, it has plenty to do with it, since there is clearly no logical possibility of proving false that which is known to be true.

You cannot show as false my observation of the tree, because I know it's true. So essentially what you're saying is that once something is known, it's no longer falsifiable.

So what happens to that possibility if the test CAN'T fail? Hmmmm?

You can't know the test will fail or not fail absolutely until after the test is done, therefore, the potential remains that the test may fail. Regardless, as stated ad nausium before, just because you think you know a test won't fail doesn't mean it can't be tested.

From now on, anytime I have to tell you that 'falsifiability does not mean that it will be falsified, only that it can be tested' I will instead say Snark.

 

[plindboe]

Your point being...?

...that falsifiability isn't determinted by what is true or false.

None of which are known to be true, right?

Absolute certainty doesn't exist in science. Or in any rational mind really.

But it's NOT given. It's taken away by the fact that the tree is known to exist.

In science we can always entertain the notion that we might be wrong, even about the things we think we know. In other words, one can always start with the proposition "Given that we're wrong...." and then try to come up with ways to test whether one is wrong.

Peter

 

[ragarth]

Absolute belief in something being true, without any need to prove or falsify this is faith. So, going back to your original argument:

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.

You believe in ID because you have faith in it. Am I right?

 

[yguy]

Why did astronauts drop a hammer and a feather on the moon? It was both symbolic and the ultimate test of Galileo's theories.

Considering that essentially the same test could have been conducted on Earth, I vote for symbolism.

...no scientist worth his marble jar is going to claim that they know something is absolutely, unequivocally true beyond any doubt of being proven wrong.

That's interesting considering that Heisenberg was quoted to me by an atheist to the effect that he was absolutely convinced that the "probabilistic" behavior of subatomic particles had no cause whatsoever.

Just because you think something is true does not make it so, this is a major tenet of science, and why science holds no sacred cows.

None that you're aware of, anyway.

Okay, I challenge you to elaborate on this and show beyond any doubt here that I am being dishonest.

I've done quite enough debating to know that denial is as impenetrable as the denier wishes it to be. So I'll just let it stand.

You can't know the test will fail or not fail absolutely until after the test is done,

I'm testing something both of us have tested many times before. I'm holding a pencil at arm's length. When I let go, it will move towards the floor and stay there rather than move towards the ceiling and stay there. I know this for a fact.

OK, here goes...

...Hey, it worked!

Whodathunkit?

From now on, anytime I have to tell you that 'falsifiability does not mean that it will be falsified, only that it can be tested' I will instead say Snark.

Something tells me I won't have reason to be concerned about it much longer.

 

[yguy]

...that falsifiability isn't determinted by what is true or false.

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.

Absolute certainty doesn't exist in science. Or in any rational mind really.

And being the paragon of rationality you presumably are, you aren't absolutely certain this is true, I suppose.

 

[yguy]

Absolute belief in something being true, without any need to prove or falsify this is faith.

Do you believe in the truth of your own existence without any need to prove or falsify it?

You believe in ID because you have faith in it. Am I right?

If you mean the same kind of "faith" by which you believe in your own existence, yes.

 

[Tenka]

I'm testing something both of us have tested many times before. I'm holding a pencil at arm's length. When I let go, it will move towards the floor and stay there rather than move towards the ceiling and stay there. I know this for a fact.

But do you know why?
If you don't know why this is a fact then you have no basis for certainty.

Gravity is not a well understood phenomenon, we have some rules to describe how it seems to behave but we dn't know why it works or what causes it.

 

[gaara4158]

That's interesting considering that Heisenberg was quoted to me by an atheist to the effect that he was absolutely convinced that the "probabilistic" behavior of subatomic particles had no cause whatsoever.

They certainly have no evident cause...

None that you're aware of, anyway.

I'll eat my big toe if you can show me a "sacred cow" (aka dogma) of science. I'll webcam it and everything.

I've done quite enough debating to know that denial is as impenetrable as the denier wishes it to be. So I'll just let it stand.

If you've done so much debating, why is it that you haven't realized that your opponent isn't the one you aim to persuade; it's the panel of judges (in this case the undecided lurkers)?

I'm testing something both of us have tested many times before. I'm holding a pencil at arm's length. When I let go, it will move towards the floor and stay there rather than move towards the ceiling and stay there. I know this for a fact.

OK, here goes...

...Hey, it worked!

Whodathunkit?

You don't have absolute knowledge that it'll happen, you just have a high enough degree of certainty to count on it happening.

And being the paragon of rationality you presumably are, you aren't absolutely certain this is true, I suppose.

As certain as you can be of anything. Which isn't absolute, but is still pretty good.

Do you believe in the truth of your own existence without any need to prove or falsify it?

I find it irrelevant. The entire experience of my consciousness could indeed be naught but a dream in another life... which could in turn be a dream within yet another life. But whilst I'm in this life I'll have to behave as though it is the real deal because everything indicates that it is.

If you mean the same kind of "faith" by which you believe in your own existence, yes.

No. Existence is an assumption I make in order to be able to understand anything, and thus make responsible decisions. Why do you assume ID?

 

[plindboe]

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.

It still is. Something may turn out impossible to falsify due to it being true, but it can still be falsifiable; which may sound like a contradiction, but isn't, due to the way falsifiability is defined. The word falsifiability is referring to the hypothetical possibility that something can be falsified, and not the actual state of things. If you can make the proposition "Given that X is wrong...." and follow up with hypothetical ways to falsify X, then you're dealing with something that is falsifiable.

If you hold a pencil in front of you and state that it will fall down to the floor if you let go, that's a falsifiable statement, because there's a logical possibility that it will fall up (or that it's glued to your hand, or that it will fall down your shoe, or that someone will come up from behind and catch it before it hits the floor). Read here about what a logical possibility is. When you understand what that means, you can go back and carefully read the definition again, that I gave in post #136.

And being the paragon of rationality you presumably are, you aren't absolutely certain this is true, I suppose.

Indeed.

Peter

 

[ragarth]

That's interesting considering that Heisenberg was quoted to me by an atheist to the effect that he was absolutely convinced that the "probabilistic" behavior of subatomic particles had no cause whatsoever.

Without knowing the context of the statement, I can't be certain, but scientists have been wrong in the past. Einstein was famously quoted as saying God does not play dice with the universe (paraphrase) and now quantum mechanics is a major part of science.

None that you're aware of, anyway.

Then give me something that science holds dear that, if it is or becomes falsifiable, wouldn't be tossed if it were falsified.

I've done quite enough debating to know that denial is as impenetrable as the denier wishes it to be. So I'll just let it stand.

If you have nothing to prove your statement, or are choosing not to prove your statement, then I'll assume you're withdrawing your statement as false.

I'm testing something both of us have tested many times before. I'm holding a pencil at arm's length. When I let go, it will move towards the floor and stay there rather than move towards the ceiling and stay there. I know this for a fact.

OK, here goes...

...Hey, it worked!

Congratulations, you just proved the falsifiability of gravity. The fact that you can conduct a test such as that proves that it's falsifiable.

 

[Hespera]

wow... next time someone needs a definition i hope they will just look it up

 

[yguy]

But do you know why?
If you don't know why this is a fact then you have no basis for certainty.

You do not know why you exist, so you have no basis for the certainty of your own existence. Right?

 

[yguy]

I'll eat my big toe if you can show me a "sacred cow" (aka dogma) of science. I'll webcam it and everything.

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

You don't have absolute knowledge that it'll happen,

I most certainly do.

As certain as you can be of anything. Which isn't absolute, but is still pretty good.

Then the ability to be absolutely certain must be better.

And I have it.

I find it irrelevant.

Obviously it's rhetorically convenient to do so.

The entire experience of my consciousness could indeed be naught but a dream in another life... which could in turn be a dream within yet another life. But whilst I'm in this life I'll have to behave as though it is the real deal because everything indicates that it is.

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.

No. Existence is an assumption I make

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

in order to be able to understand anything, and thus make responsible decisions.

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

Why do you assume ID?

I don't.

 

[Hespera]

You do not know why you exist, so you have no basis for the certainty of your own existence. Right?

Wrong. You get from "if' to "then" in unique ways.

In any case, the "why' you are wondering about is probably a spiritual one?

The "why" that a person being rational / using logic would be to say our existence is the result of natural forces of unknown origin.


Oh.. btw Descartes worked out the "i think therefore I am " bit a long time ago.

 

[yguy]

The word falsifiability is referring to the hypothetical possibility that something can be falsified, and not the actual state of things.

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.

If you hold a pencil in front of you and state that it will fall down to the floor if you let go, that's a falsifiable statement, because there's a logical possibility that it will fall up (or that it's glued to your hand, or that it will fall down your shoe, or that someone will come up from behind and catch it before it hits the floor).

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.

Read here about what a logical possibility is.

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?

 

[yguy]

If you have nothing to prove your statement,

Actually there's plenty of evidence in this thread. I just don't feel like drawing a map.

then I'll assume you're withdrawing your statement as false.

Hardly.

 

[Hespera]

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.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.

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?

all due respect and so forth but have you actually tried to find out from some third party source like a dictionary, what the word "falsifiable" means?

 

[Athrond]

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.

Doh , you still don't get the difference between "false" and falsifiable?

I don't get what's so difficult about it

Claim: there is a tree outside.

Falsifiability: this claim can be rendered false if I look and there isn't one outside. or [insert whatever test you wish].

It's useful in science, but not in everyday life.

 

[Hespera]

Doh , you still don't get the difference between "false" and falsifiable?

I don't get what's so difficult about it

Claim: there is a tree outside.

Falsifiability: this claim can be rendered false if I look and there isn't one outside. or [insert whatever test you wish].

It's useful in science, but not in everyday life.

would it help to say that what someone SAYS is subject to being falsified but that the physical object itself is not?

He SAID there is a tree. so we go look. that is the falsification process.

 

[ragarth]

Since Yguy is apparently incapable of backing up his libel, anyone else see an instance of my being dishonest in this thread?