Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (101747)	1/24/2009 9:07:47 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543266

<<<But that is the scientific method. A hypothesis followed by accumulation of evidence, i.e. the looking for evidence to support the hypothesis.>>> for ID to compete, it must take on genetic theory, etc. Proponents of ID, to be taken seriously, must address things like carbon dating, DNA evidence, and so on, because those are the concepts that underlie modern evolutionary theories. However, to challenge something like carbon dating, for example, requires challenging modern particle physics; it will be very difficult to demonstrate that particle physics is bunk. The advances that led to the possibility of carbon dating are the same advances that led to chemotherapy, and were in the family of advances that led to the possibility of computer chips (namely, advances in quantum mechanics.) So, in an important sense, evolutionary theories are intimately intertwined with a wide array of hard sciences. To "compete" on the level that ID appears to want to compete, they have a lot of hard physical science to re-explain. (I will issue a personal challenge to any ID proponent to re-explain particle physics and quantum mechanics in such a way as to tear down carbon dating, yet retain the possibilities of modern computing. And I point out the deep irony of anyone blogging about this.)

To: Katelew who wrote (101747)	1/25/2009 8:36:39 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 543266

But that is the scientific method. A hypothesis followed by accumulation of evidence, i.e. the looking for evidence to support the hypothesis. No, that is bass ackwards. It is not scientific to look for evidence to support anything. If you go looking for it, you will find it but miss or discount all the evidence that contradicts it. Science studies the evidence first, then follow wherever it leads. The best advocate for the spirit of science in pop culture is the character Gil Grissom on CSI. He preaches that crime scene investigators refrain from trying to prove someone guilty or not guilty and just see where the evidence leads. What people call "theories" nowadays are often suppositions or wishful thinking. Then they go off searching for and finding just the evidence that they can interpret as supporting and often just enough of it to snow others who are predisposed to believe it into thinking it has been demonstrated/proven. Sure, you can identify things that seem to support intelligent design. You can also identify things that seem to lead in the opposite direction. There is plenty there to tickle the philosopher or cleric, but you can't call it science. There there is absolutely no way to gather the evidence needed to prove it either way, which any reputable scientist knows, and which makes any alleged scientist who makes a claim on that basis a quack. He is either unethical or incompetent or both. And partially responsible for the continued dumbing down of our society.