What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[ragarth]

How in heck do you figure that?

I see a tree outside my window. Is that observation falsifiable?

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.

Right?

You see the tree, it's a logical assumption that the tree will still be there if you go outside, so if you go outside and see it, it's there. If you go outside and do not see the tree, then it was indeed not a tree.

This is the property of falsifiability, the capacity to test a claim or observation to ensure that it is correct. Something can be true and falsifiable- If the tree *is* there, then every test you subject it to will be passed, it is therefore true that the tree is there. It will remain falsifiable because you can repeat your tests for confirmation, others can repeat your tests, and you can develop new tests to continue testing the existence of the tree.


I think where you're getting confused is the relative nature of fact and truth in science. Just because something is indeed true and factual does not mean it will always be so, science holds no sacred cows. You measure the tree by visual observation, you confirm the tree by secondary visual observation, touch, and smell. The tree is true in your mind, and will remain so until future testing shows otherwise, but you must be open to the possibility that your observation and testing is not absolute, and you may later do a genetic analysis and discover that the tree was indeed a shrub and so what you regard as truth now, may not be truth later.

A real world example of this are such things as quantum physics, general relativity, big bang theory, expansionism, and evolution. All of these are theories, they are built upon observation and testing with exceptional backings of proof, they are 'true' in terms of what we can currently measure, but may and probably will be 'false' at a later date once future testing and observation finds conflicts with them. At this point, they will be modified to account for the new data, or will be supplanted by better theories, because there are no sacred cows in science and nothing is above falsification.

 

[JBJoe]

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.

Right?

Technically the problem is equivocation of the word "observation." There are multiple definitions of the word. From Merriam-Webster:

2 a: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments <weather observations> b: a record or description so obtained

3: a judgment on or inference from what one has observed ; broadly : remark , statement

One of those can be falsified, one cannot.

For example:

"I made the observation that there was a tree outside his window." You can't really falsify that, it's just a naked fact.

"It is my observation that all trees have leaves." You can falsify that.

 

[Hespera]

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.

Originally Posted by yguy

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<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


​

There is no logical possibility of falsifying evolution, because it is true. And it is obvious.
Whats more, countless efforts have been made for 150 years to falsify it, with no luck. Not one (1) data point.

Interestingly, countless thousands of data points contradict the creation story.

 

[Naraoia]

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.

Logical possibility =/= real-world possibility.

Falsifiability is about hypotheticals.

In the case of the tree, you know there is a tree there because IF there was no tree you couldn't see it, touch it, chop it down, etc; however, you could walk through it, for example. You expect different observations depending on the presence or absence of a tree; and IF there was no tree, you would have a way of knowing that. That's what falsifiability means. As others said, it has nothing to do with the truth of the statement.

 

[yguy]

You see the tree, it's a logical assumption that the tree will still be there if you go outside,

Since I posited no such assumption, what purpose is there in bringing it up other than to confuse the issue?

This is the property of falsifiability, the capacity to test a claim or observation to ensure that it is correct. Something can be true and falsifiable- If the tree *is* there, then every test you subject it to

What "tests" do you have in mind beyond me looking at it and seeing that it's a tree?

will be passed, it is therefore true that the tree is there. It will remain falsifiable because you can repeat your tests for confirmation,

If the tree isn't there tomorrow, how does that prove it wasn't here the day before?

others can repeat your tests,

Which prove nothing, because my assertion was specific to a certain point in time.

and you can develop new tests to continue testing the existence of the tree.

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

 

[yguy]

Falsifiability is about hypotheticals.

Yeah, when you don't know if a proposition is true or not. I get it, and have from the beginning.

...IF there was no tree, you would have a way of knowing that. That's what falsifiability means. As others said, it has nothing to do with the truth of the statement.

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

 

[yguy]

There is no logical possibility of falsifying evolution, because it is true.

No. Macroevolution is not experimentally falsifiable, and it's not verifiable by any means because verification can only be done by credible witnesses. Extrapolations of the age of the Earth and so on can't otherwise be anything more than hypereducated guesses.

 

[Naraoia]

Yeah, when you don't know if a proposition is true or not. I get it, and have from the beginning.

That very first sentence shows you don't get it.

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

Where did I say that?

Let's agree that there is a tree. It's a true statement, beyond reasonable doubt.

You can still imagine what would happen if there was no tree and you can check if that's indeed happening.

(Which it is not, but that doesn't change the fact that you could test whether it is)

 

[Naraoia]

No. Macroevolution is not experimentally falsifiable, and it's not verifiable by any means because verification can only be done by credible witnesses. Extrapolations of the age of the Earth and so on can't otherwise be anything more than hypereducated guesses.

From what I've heard, witnesses are about the least credible kind of evidence you can get.

 

[ragarth]

Since I posited no such assumption, what purpose is there in bringing it up other than to confuse the issue?

Unless you're claiming trees are capable of disappearing in a matter of moments, it's a logical assumption from the idea of a tree existing. If you're positing that a tree may disappear in the time it takes for you to walk out a door, then I suggest you test that hypothesis.[/quote]

What "tests" do you have in mind beyond me looking at it and seeing that it's a tree?

I posited several. You can see it both in your house and outside your house. You can see it from different angles, you can feel the tree, smell the tree, and genetically test the tree.

If the tree isn't there tomorrow, how does that prove it wasn't here the day before?

Which prove nothing, because my assertion was specific to a certain point in time.

The fact that you can make these two statements back to back shows you're just trying to be contrary and have no interest in a real debate. If you're a troll, you're not very good.

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

How so? I think I made it quite falsifiable, remember, a falsifiable claim is not a claim that will be proven false, or even a claim one might expect to be false, but a claim with the capacity to be tested and therefore proven wrong if if fails the test. The fact that you can still ask this question after this has been explained to you 6 or 7 times shows you're ignoring what others say in deference to what you want to believe. This is anti-intellectualism and willful ignorance.

 

[yguy]

Where did I say that?

It seemed a reasonable inference from what you DID say.

Let's agree that there is a tree. It's a true statement, beyond reasonable doubt.

You can still imagine what would happen if there was no tree and you can check if that's indeed happening.

(Which it is not, but that doesn't change the fact that you could test whether it is)

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.

 

[ragarth]

No. Macroevolution is not experimentally falsifiable, and it's not verifiable by any means because verification can only be done by credible witnesses. Extrapolations of the age of the Earth and so on can't otherwise be anything more than hypereducated guesses.

--I made a statement here that was incorrect, macroevolution is indeed used in research papers, as proven to me by shernren--

Direct observation is not a requirement for empirical evidence, forensics can look at the bones of a human and conclude the human was mauled by a tiger via the scratch and bite marks in comparison to tiger scratch and bite marks without having to directly observe the human being mauled by the tiger. The scratch marks in the bones are empirical evidence, just as the progression of fossils in the fossil record is empirical evidence.

Carbon dating has been shown to have less than a +/- .3% variation per year based upon distance from the sun. Similer radioactive materials either have equivalent or less, and this variation evens out over the period of a year. This has all been experimentally verified, therefore, the use of radiological dating techniques is proven to be accurate. Further, there is no such thing as a hypereducated guess, there is random speculation, educated guesses (about the same as a hypothesis), theories and facts. If something is a hyper version of something, and it's generally acepted to be a better version of that something, then wouldn't a hyper-educated guess be a theory?

Please quit using made up words.

 

[shernren]

Macroevolution is a red herring, there are not any scientific journals I know of that speak about Macroevolution. The only time the word is used is when Creationists are talking and when scientists are talking to Creationists. What is generally described as macroevolution is considered by the vast majority of the evolutionary biology community to be a natural progression from what is generally described as microevolution. Ergo, they are both simply evolution, and an attempt to draw a difference is creating a false dichotomy.
...
Please quit using made up words.

Not so fast. I'm afraid evolutionists have their PRATTs too, and this is one of them.

A search on PubMed yields 162 occurrences of the word "macroevolution". Here's a typical paper:

Testing whether macroevolution follows microevolution: Are colour differences among swans (Cygnus) attributable to variation at the MC1R locus?

And the researchers' answer is affirmative:

We have likely uncovered an example where macroevolutionary change in plumage colour among species of Cygnus involves variation at the same locus that is involved in microevolution of melanism within a species of Anser, the snow goose A. caerulescens.
[Conclusion]​

 

[plindboe]

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.

The definition I cited did not include anything "known to be true". It used the word "assertion". Falsifiability deals with assertions, claims, statements, hypotheses, theories; i.e. our ideas about reality.

If the tree exists, then we'll of course never succeed falsifying it, but we can still come up with tests that would falsify it given the logical possibility that the tree didn't exist, which makes the assertion falsifiable (and no, I'm not contradicting myself). The first part of the sentence deals with reality as it is, while the second part deals with our ideas about reality and our efforts to investigate them.

Peter

 

[yguy]

Unless you're claiming trees are capable of disappearing in a matter of moments, it's a logical assumption from the idea of a tree existing.

That may be, but it is NOT one that I made any claims about with respect to falsifiability. It's a red herring you've introduced to divert attention from your unwillingness to look at your own illogic.

I posited several. You can see it both in your house and outside your house. You can see it from different angles, you can feel the tree, smell the tree, and genetically test the tree.

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

The fact that you can make these two statements back to back shows you're just trying to be contrary and have no interest in a real debate. If you're a troll, you're not very good.

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

How so? I think I made it quite falsifiable,

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

remember, a falsifiable claim is not a claim that will be proven false, or even a claim one might expect to be false,

And neither have I said anything different.

but a claim with the capacity to be tested and therefore proven wrong if fails the test.

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

The fact that you can still ask this question after this has been explained to you 6 or 7 times shows you're ignoring what others say in deference to what you want to believe. This is anti-intellectualism and willful ignorance.

And this is projection.

 

[Split Rock]

No. Macroevolution is not experimentally falsifiable, and it's not verifiable by any means because verification can only be done by credible witnesses. Extrapolations of the age of the Earth and so on can't otherwise be anything more than hypereducated guesses.

Please define "macroevolution" for us, so we understand what you are referring to.

 

[Split Rock]

That may be, but it is NOT one that I made any claims about with respect to falsifiability. It's a red herring you've introduced to divert attention from your unwillingness to look at your own illogic.And I would do all that when I already knew the tree is there because...?I think it's a lot more likely that one of us is unable to find fault with either. Exactly. You took what I said and dishonestly turned it into something that fits your preconception.And neither have I said anything different.So what happens to that possibility if the test CAN'T fail? Hmmmm?And this is projection.

There isn't any test that cannot fail. Neither do you know that creationism is true... you believe it is true.

 

[yguy]

Macroevolution is a red herring...

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.

Direct observation is not a requirement

According to whom? And why should a reasonable person take the word of these authorities?

Please quit using made up words.

Show me how.

 

[ragarth]

Not so fast. I'm afraid evolutionists have their PRATTs too, and this is one of them.

A search on PubMed yields 162 occurrences of the word "macroevolution". Here's a typical paper:

Testing whether macroevolution follows microevolution: Are colour differences among swans (Cygnus) attributable to variation at the MC1R locus?

And the researchers' answer is affirmative:

We have likely uncovered an example where macroevolutionary change in plumage colour among species of Cygnus involves variation at the same locus that is involved in microevolution of melanism within a species of Anser, the snow goose A. caerulescens.
[Conclusion]​

I stand corrected! Thank you for teaching me something new.

 

[yguy]

The definition I cited did not include anything "known to be true". It used the word "assertion".

Your point being...?

Falsifiability deals with assertions, claims, statements, hypotheses, theories; i.e. our ideas about reality.

None of which are known to be true, right?

If the tree exists, then we'll of course never succeed falsifying it, but we can still come up with tests that would falsify it given the logical possibility that the tree didn't exist,

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