Are you maybe still working through how to answer some of my questions? I'm OK with that, and don't want to be overly critical if that is the case. It's the nature of a discussion, and I don't expect people to have every answer prepared.
I ask because either you are undecided or I'm not understanding your answers. To me you seem to go back and forth between "yes" and "no".
Great. Thought experiments are a great mental aside, but if (as in the case of ID) there are scientifically unfounded assumptions, then it doesn't really qualify as a scientific pursuit. At best, it's pseudo-science. At worst, it's deliberate muddying of the waters and detrimental to the pursuit and progress of the sciences in general. I appreciate you don't see it as science because of the lack of falsifiability but you're a rarity in the conversation. This is probably a bigger problem these days than it used to be, specifically because of the attempts of the likes of ID to pollute the sciences with pseudo-science as if it were legitimate - surely the Dover trial brought this to the fore?
Of course you left out the names this time, so I can't know specifically whom you are accusing, but to answer one of your questions, the person we were discussing was Dembski, and you have made several unfounded, defamatory statements above. I'm not going to be able to have a discussion with you about science if you don't understand why such statements are unfounded. Maybe you should read this material:
Online Defamation Law
Afterward, you can answer this question: Do you really think what you're saying would stand up in a court of law? Any good lawyer would rip you apart
tout de suite.
And you continue to misunderstand me. I am not saying ID (as presented by Dembski in his original work) is unscientific. I laid out 6 general steps for a scientific method in
post #82. IMO Dembski successfully completed the first 3 (maybe 2.5) of those steps. The fact that he did not successfully complete all 6 does not suddenly make what he did pseudo-science. If that were true, Newtonian mechanics (your example that I'll discuss more later) would also be pseudo-science.
The only way I can rescue your statement and give it some credence is to say those who promote ID as a complete theory - who claim it went farther than it did - would be promoting pseudo-science. So, I don't agree with you that the original source material makes unfounded assumptions, is ridiculous, or is pseudo-science. All I have said is that it encountered a logical roadblock and failed to produce a feasible test.
Now on your creationist's falsification test (and sorry I kept overlooking this, not intentional), if you mean to say there's no falsification test, then the hypothesis might as well be conjecture because it isn't going to provide useful answers, the entire point of science.
I disagree that usefulness is "the entire point of science". I've heard scientists at CF reject that position, and I'm pretty sure I can dig up quotes from some well-known scientists that reject that position.
Regardless, my impression of what you're saying is: Yes, an idea must successfully complete all 6 steps before it can be considered science. Well, OK. I disagree, but I've been around long enough to realize people almost never retreat from a position once they've stated it in an Internet forum.
For example, Newtonian Gravity was eventually falsified on the observations of the procession of Mercury, but it was still useful for putting satellites into orbit and men on the moon, so on and we still use it today.
But wait, there's an exception. If you find it useful, it's also science. I already mentioned why
I found ID useful, but this exception only applies if
you think it's useful.
What makes an idea relevant?
That's a personal preference. For me, baseball (and specifically, the KC Royals) are relevant to my life. For you, maybe not. There may be stuff people are working on, hoping to codify it as science but will never succeed, but still trying because it's relevant to them. There may be valid scientific possibilities lying around that no one has ever looked at because no one has ever thought it relevant.
Are you even Serious?? These people are the very personification of the Dunning-Kreuger effect in full flight!
You might want to go back and read that defamation link again. Then note this:
Dunning-Kruger is a legitimate, accepted "cognitive bias" recognized by professional psychologists. If you are a licensed therapist trained to diagnose it, then please explain to me how this is done by reading random posts on the Internet about people you've never met. As it happens, I have spent decades dealing with family members who suffer from mental disorders, and I find it highly (repeat
highly) insulting that you are amused by throwing these terms around like candy at an Easter parade. If you insist on continuing, I will need to withdraw from the conversation.
Sorry, but all this sounded to me like yes, but no. My answer would be: No, not everyone can do every science. That wouldn't lead me to restrict anyone. I think they should get the chance to try. But they need to demonstrate the ability. Further, I see no shame in admitting what one can't do. I'm a horrible swimmer. I can't draw worth a hoot. And I'm pretty weak in chemistry.
I don't recall ever seeing any of his work on this, and what he did do was in Philosophy, not Biology or Genetics, etc.
Are you adding yet another requirement for science? One must hold a degree to do science? So, up until someone graduates from college they've never done science? There are reasons for degrees, but I wouldn't say that defines who can and can't do science.
Further, it only continues to highlight your unfamiliarity with ID. What Dembski laid out was not built upon the axioms and theorems of biology. Dembski's background is mathematics and statistics, and that is largely what ID depends upon. As such, the idea (had it worked) could have been applied to anything designed - cars, houses, paintings, whatever. It is not specific to the origins of life.
Hmmm, perhaps land us the preamble that wipes away all these preconceptions and decide on the outcome of that? I'm genuinely interested in what you're proposing.
Until we get some of the above issues straightened out, I'm not inclined to do that. I mean, after all, since I never completed all 6 steps, what I did wasn't science.
