Expelled

[Hope]

Hope,

There is a very real phenomenon of prejudice within the scientific community towards ID. However, some prejudices are well founded. I think this prejudice comes from a number of traits prevalent in the ID movement:

1) Insistence on being taken seriously, despite a complete lack of quantitative predictions, proposals for how to test those predictions, or a single point of experimental data
2) A long history of distorting or misunderstanding the theory and supporting facts behind evolution
3) An admitted and documented political agenda

You specifically refer to scientists who simply say that the existence of an intelligent designer is possible. The problem is that most people who support ID are going far beyond that simple statement.

I agree with you that scientists who merely suggest the possibility of a designer should not be shunned, lose their jobs, etc. But if all you are saying is that an intelligent designer is possible, then as a scientist, I smile and say "That's nice". When a guy hands me a pamphlet about the "intrinsic gravity" of organisms which is full of newly-invented jargon and totally lacking in equations or experimental data, I smile and say "That's nice". The conversation is over. You don't need a symposium or an article in the journal Nature to say that something is possible; that's a waste of time. And you certainly don't need to be paid $90K a year at a university to say it; that's a waste of money, especially when your colleagues are using evolutionary "theory" to, for example, breed bacterial mutants that can be used to detect trace amounts of hazardous materials.

Science is tough. I was at a biophysics conference this weekend and there were many people there who worried that their research would not be taken seriously. These people had well-documented experiments, and mathematical models on their side. They explained in great detail what the outcome of an experiment should be if their hypothesis were true, and how this result compares to the predictions of alternative hypotheses. They drew conservative conclusions, usually making caveats like "it's not yet conclusive..." or "we haven't yet measured it this way..."

Yet, they were worried that their case (e.g., about the binding mechanism of some protein) just wasn't convincing enough. Scientists are very, very critical. If you can't make your ideas crystal clear, or if you don't address all the possible objections to your research, people walk out of your lecture and they don't even glance at your poster. After every single lecture, there was at least one question from the audience that called into question an assumption made, a method used, or a conclusion drawn. A great number of the people there were post-docs ultimately seeking a professorship with full funding and tenure. The vast majority of them will never get it.

If your work isn't clear, rigorous, relevant, or supported by the data, you don't get funded, you don't get promoted, and you don't get tenure. If you spend much of your time touting unsupported or unsupportable ideas, people ridicule those ideas, whether it's ID or anything else.

My advice to ID proponents: quit whining just because you haven't been able to produce anything scientifically rigorous. If what you're doing is science, then show me an equation. Show me a schematic of a novel detector or experiment. Show me some data. You can believe and talk about whatever you want as a private individual, but as a scientist, you either put up or shut up.

Thanks, Spinkles, for giving me a better perspective on this issue. Makes more sense now. I simply do not follow avid ID proponents closely enough to understand where some of the prejudice comes from.

 

[Autodidact]

I love open-minded people.

 

[rojse]

If it's philosophical, it doesn't necessarily have to be proven by science. Check my signature quote. I believe that it's true, but it can't be proven scientifically.

If it cannot be proven through scientific method, then it is not science, and should not be attempted to be taught as such.

As a religious belief, it certainly can be.

 

[Captain Civic]

If it cannot be proven through scientific method, then it is not science, and should not be attempted to be taught as such.

As a religious belief, it certainly can be.

I didn't claim it to be science. I completely agree with you.

I'm just saying I believe there's truth that can't be verified as scientific truth.

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't claim it to be science. I completely agree with you.

I'm just saying I believe there's truth that can't be verified as scientific truth.

That's interesting, but completely irrelevant to this thread. However, now that we're nicely de-railed, how to figure out what's true and what isn't, without the scientific method?

 

[Captain Civic]

how to figure out what's true and what isn't, without the scientific method?

To be completely politically correct, the only truth that can exist outside of the scientific method would have to be subjective and metaphysical.

For example, my sig quote. I believe that it's true, mostly from my own experiences. I'm sure someone else could argue exactly the opposite, according to what they've experienced and what they believe. Is it true via the scientific method? Not necessarily.

 

[Autodidact]

So it can't be done? How do you decide what you think is true, "subjectively and metaphysically?" Is truth subjective?

 

[Popeyesays]

So it can't be done? How do you decide what you think is true, "subjectively and metaphysically?" Is truth subjective?

No, truth is RELATIVE.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Sunstone]

Truth is a property of the relationship between a proposition and the terrain it refers to. There is nothing in that definition of truth that says only scientifically established facts can be true.

 

[Autodidact]

Truth is a property of the relationship between a proposition and the terrain it refers to. There is nothing in that definition of truth that says only scientifically established facts can be true.

Of course, but it brings you to the epistemological question: not, what is true? But: how do we know what is true? After all, truth such as you mention could be a mere coincidence.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

So it can't be done? How do you decide what you think is true, "subjectively and metaphysically?" Is truth subjective?

Truth is definitely subjective.

 

[doppelganger]

Truth is definitely subjectice.

Unless I think it's not.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

Unless I think it's not.

Well, if I think it is, then it is.

 

[doppelganger]

Well, if I think it is, then it is.

But just for you.

 

[Captain Civic]

But just for you.

Yay! We agree!

Yeah, I guess the best way to say is that truth is subjective. I find it hard to say that all truth is objective. I would think that the sky is blue as objective truth, but I have no way of knowing that you see it as green. Then your objective truth would be that the sky is green, not blue.

It's a tricky area.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Truth is definitely subjectice.

Hmm. I figure you mean subjective, but I am not quite sure how that is possible.

"MdmSzdWhtGuy is five foot eight inches tall" (Truth)

"MdmSzdWhtGuy is six foot eight inches tall" (Falsehood:

Now I, and those who know me, know that I am 5' 8" and not 6' 8", and that is not a matter of subjectivity. I am curious how you meant the statement above.

B.

 

[Popeyesays]

Hmm. I figure you mean subjective, but I am not quite sure how that is possible.

"MdmSzdWhtGuy is five foot eight inches tall" (Truth)

"MdmSzdWhtGuy is six foot eight inches tall" (Falsehood:

Now I, and those who know me, know that I am 5' 8" and not 6' 8", and that is not a matter of subjectivity. I am curious how you meant the statement above.

B.

It's a statistical truth HERE. But if you lie down and someone measures the length of your body, it will be closer to 5-10" or maybe a little more. Or if your height were measured in a lighter gravitic field--like microgravity or on the moon you would be taller, yet.

This is because the gravity pulls down on your body and compresses the discs in your spine. When you are lying down the compression is relieved and you are longer than you are tall.

Regards,
Scott

 

[yossarian22]

It's a statistical truth HERE. But if you lie down and someone measures the length of your body, it will be closer to 5-10" or maybe a little more. Or if your height were measured in a lighter gravitic field--like microgravity or on the moon you would be taller, yet.

This is because the gravity pulls down on your body and compresses the discs in your spine. When you are lying down the compression is relieved and you are longer than you are tall.

Regards,
Scott

How about he is 5' 8" at 1G at STP? Can't see much possibility for variation in that. Save for some minor fluctuations due to measuring errors.

 

[Popeyesays]

How about he is 5' 8" at 1G at STP? Can't see much possibility for variation in that. Save for some minor fluctuations due to measuring errors.

Or further wear on the discs as MSWG ages. I am a half inch shorter than I was at 25 for instance.

It's like the box. You ahve to open it up to know whether you're going to have to feed the cat or bury it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[yossarian22]

Or further wear on the discs as MSWG ages. I am a half inch shorter than I was at 25 for instance.

It's like the box. You ahve to open it up to know whether you're going to have to feed the cat or bury it.

Regards,
Scott

I assumed we are talking in terms of present time. But either way, we will eventually run out of variables.