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".
...what? You'll have to reference that - feel free to do that anytime you're ready.
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
Put his name in there then if you think it belongs, I was referring to him, and not just him but all the ID proponents - so best include all their names (Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, etc.), and feel free to pass on my details too, fill your boots because ID has in fact already been found by a court of law to be a religious proposition so far devoid of scientific substance.
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial - Truth hurts, but there it is...
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.
Science is Science and the Law is the Law. If you have to mix the two, then you're doing both of them wrong. If for example a gaggle of cdesign proponentsists got some ruling in a court of law to promote ID in science classes, this wouldn't make it science. It would be a disservice at the very least and nothing more.
Anyhoo, that aside, ID has already been found by a court of law to be 'Creation Science' rebadged, so your question has been asked and answered already.
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.
Oh, This'll be Good! - What is the scientific question being asked then, and how much of it has its foundation in 'Science'? Also, I gotta hear what 'hypothesis' has been (is being?) developed for ID too! Seriously, this is what everyone's been waiting for!
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.
LOL! That's factually incorrect. I'm beginning to think you missed key concepts in science classes now... Newtonian Physics had working models producing predictive results, even if they weren't perfect and eventually found to be as such. For you to say that Newtonian Physics and ID are on the same footing is absurdness of the highest order, I'm not sure I can take you seriously now. ID pretty much fails at the gate because it hasn't got to asking a valid scientific question yet. It is literally just conjecture and at this point all the arguments out there by these ID proponents are not in favour of ID, but is simply attempting to cast doubt on established research supporting Evolution.
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.
What scientific foundation, or evidence, or even facts are there in support of any kind of 'intelligent designer' in biology?
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.
I'm okay with that, I said this earlier that some ideas such as the Multiverse have their foundations in Science, but aren't useful in any way yet (if ever). What you don't hear though is the multiverse being taught in schools as factual science. those theoretical physicists who research it are up-front about it being nothing more than an 'idea' despite being borne out in the data way more than ID ever was. Regardless of the possibility we are the product of a multiverse, this is currently unfalsifiable with no working scientific model. See
Multiverse - Wikipedia
ID though, with less evidence in its favour is being pushed as a scientific fact deserving a place in high school science classes by cdesign proponentsists, replete with
school reference texts already published for consumption and all! and Therein lies the problem...
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.
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.
I perhaps should clarify 'useful' to be of practical use in some form to the progress of humanity. I guess being able to discern knowable and unknowable things in reality is useful, so perhaps ID is useful in that aspect?
Also, why do Science if you're not getting any use out of it? (learning is useful too, btw) - ID doesn't really contribute anything to that - unless of course you consider learning unfalsifiable things as useful?
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.
Let me rephrase that - What makes an idea scientifically relevant?
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.
I'm sorry you feel so insulted, I'm certainly not any kind of professional psychologist diagnosing anyone with any legitimate condition but my partner is a practising psychologist and I have every respect for people suffering from any form of psychological disorder. Also, being a cognitive bias, you won't be committed to an asylum for 'accute' dunning-kruger (if there ever was such a diagnosis!
) because as you pointed out, it's a cognitive bias, not a disorder. Of course, you do understand I refer to those listed as examples of people exhibiting those traits, and not you or your family & friends, right? Would you like me to quote those named where they assert they know more about these topics than the scientists (or conversely where they claim the scientists knows less) in these fields?
You seem to take quite a lot personally despite none of my commentary being toward you at all. Also, you seem to keep circling back to your defamation link like it's supposed to mean something, point out any factual comments I've made that isn't already in the public domain in some form or other and I'll assess for retraction if it means we get to continue...
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.
Cool, I can agree with that (since it seems you're just repeating my point of view from the other end) - emphasis on learning the subject matter as understood by the incumbent community first, of course.
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.
Of course you don't nee a degree in science to do science - but it helps if you want to be serious about it. If you want to categorise Dembski's pontification about science topics as science (which I don't really have a problem with if point be pressed) then sure. He does science. I still don't see it legitimate reason to include ID as high school science curriculum, and that's not just me who sees it that way. What you're doing here though is highlighting the very thing we were talking about earlier regarding one's ability to do science appropriately - Dembski doesn't have a Phd in Biology or genetics, and that he didn't start with the axioms and theorems of biology when he writes about biology is plainly apparent to those who are working in these fields. You've also noted that his idea doesn't have practical application either, no matter how useful he (or anyone else) thinks it'd be if it worked... On that though, the concepts of the Theory of Evolution do have practical applications and does have real world testable results that prove useful outside of biology - whether it be in design or predictability in resource location, etc., it continues to produce reliable results.
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.
As you wish...
