Intelligent Design???

[shmogie]

FYI, not directly observing or replicating an event does not preclude us from concluding that it happened. No one has directly observed or replicated the earth completely orbiting the sun, yet we're pretty sure it does.

True, but the conclusion is based upon a variety of evidences obtained by methods for which the evidence of their reliability is overwhelming.

f these methods didn´t exist, would you still say the earth orbited the sun ?

 

[leroy]

No, you asked him to copy/paste exact portions of someone else's piece of written work.

Because according to him, his view is described in that paper, including the particular question that I asked.

Since I didn't find the answer, I simply asked him to quote the portions of the article that provide the specific answer to my specific question. .....

 

[shmogie]

What we call "Evidence" covers a wide range of possible paths, observation and replication are just 2 out of many other examples.

OK, but that brings us once again to the question; what are the rules of evidence in science. The term is thrown around, yet I don´t know what it is, why it is, or how itś value is established.

 

[Jose Fly]

True, but the conclusion is based upon a variety of evidences obtained by methods for which the evidence of their reliability is overwhelming.

f these methods didn´t exist, would you still say the earth orbited the sun ?

Probably not. It's always interesting though to see the hoops people will jump through when those same methods (basically the scientific method) generate results that some people don't like (e.g., humans share a common ancestry with other primates, the earth orbits the sun).

 

[shmogie]

Probably not. It's always interesting though to see the hoops people will jump through when those same methods (basically the scientific method) generate results that some people don't like (e.g., humans share a common ancestry with other primates, the earth orbits the sun).

Who determines the value and quality of the evidence developed by the scientific method ?

Are their rules of evidence in science as there is in law ?

 

[leroy]

OK, but that brings us once again to the question; what are the rules of evidence in science. The term is thrown around, yet I don´t know what it is, why it is, or how itś value is established.

"X " would be Evidene if an idea or claim is more likely to be true given "X" than without "X"

For example finding a unicorn in the fossil record would count as evidence for the existance of unicorns , because given that fossil the claim because more likely to be true than without the fossil .

 

[Jose Fly]

Who determines the value and quality of the evidence developed by the scientific method ?

The quality of a piece of evidence is inherent in that piece of evidence. For example, think of a fossil. Is it complete? Is it still in its original setting? How was it collected, handled, and stored?

Are their rules of evidence in science as there is in law ?

Generally, but each piece of evidence is evaluated on its own merits.

 

[leroy]

Who determines the value and quality of the evidence developed by the scientific method ?

Are their rules of evidence in science as there is in law ?

There is some criteria that define something is strong evidence or weak evidence. Like explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, less ad hoc, parsimony predictive power etc

When you have 2 compiting pieces of evidence you should evaluate them according those criteria.

Ultimately the method is not very objective, this is why 2 brilliant individuals with access to the same evidence can reach different conclusions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, part of the difficulty with detection of deities is that there are no conditions where we *expect* with high confidence to conclusively detect such things. But that is an issue for the theists to come up with appropriate tests.

Sort of, but the continuation of this logic takes science down the rabbit hole of Ontological Naturalism, which is beyond purview of Methodological Naturalism, and the false claim that science can falsify the negative.

 

[exchemist]

Because according to him, his view is described in that paper, including the particular question that I asked.

Since I didn't find the answer, I simply asked him to quote the portions of the article that provide the specific answer to my specific question. .....

It seems to me his view was pretty clear from his response.

And I think you are being disingenuous.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is some criteria that define something is strong evidence or weak evidence. Like explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, less ad hoc, parsimony predictive power etc

When you have 2 compiting pieces of evidence you should evaluate them according those criteria.

ALL objective verifiable evidence should be considered when proposing to falsify any theory or hypothesis, and this is the criteria of science.

Ultimately the method is not very objective, this is why 2 brilliant individuals with access to the same evidence can reach different conclusions.

Needs more explanation, because 'brilliance' is not a criteria for science. The falsification of theories and hypothesis is the goal based on scientific methods.

 

[exchemist]

So then, an unobserved, unreplicated, proposed phenomenon, based upon an unknown environment and unknown operational features must de facto be declared non existent. No evidence is evidence of non existence, correct ?

If you have a hypothesis that positively predicts a phenomenon should definitely be observed under given conditions, and it is not found under those conditions, then that is strong evidence the hypothesis is wrong, cf. Michelson Morley.

If you have a hypothesis that says such and such should exist but does not predict the conditions under which it should be found, and it has not been found, that is weaker evidence against the hypothesis, or possibly not evidence against it at all. As with magnetic monopoles.

Your scenario appears to be the latter.

A scenario like the one you describe, however, might well be set aside as having no utility, per Ockham's Razor. So it could be dismissed from scientific consideration on those grounds, rather than on the lack of evidence for it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not speaking of gods and other worlds. If a DA charges that defendant A committed a robbery, but cannot produce evidence that he did, then the absence of evidence is evidence that defendant A did not commit a robbery.

Issues of law are not directly applicable to scientific methods. The criteria is different for how evidence is used in law.

If scientist A proposes a theory, that is initiated by an unproven hypothesis;

Hypothesis are not proven nor unproven.

Does the absence of evidence for the beginning critical factor void the entire theory ?

No, the lack of evidence for the beginning (beginning of what?) just means at this point the hypothesis or theory(?}) cannot meet the criteria for falsification.

Does impeaching counter evidence, i.e. evidence that leads to the conclusion that the hypothesis is wrong, have significant weight in voiding the entire theory ?

Counter evidence to the hypothesis would mean the hypothesis without evidence would fail the criteria for falsification.

 

[leroy]

It seems to me his view was pretty clear from his response.

And I think you are being disingenuous.

Ok since @shunyadragon 's view is so clear perhaps you can explain it to me

Does he believes that falgellums where build mainly by neutral mutations selected by genetic drift or by positive mutations selected by natural selection ?. Which of the 2 mutations played a more relevant role in building flagellums?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, observation, and reproducability are elements of scientific evidence, as is statistical analysis.

Are there circumstances within science where the absence of evidence, is evidence ?

Yes. If a supposed event should have produced evidence and none is to be found then an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

For example, let's take a police based version. A person comes screaming into a police station near to a shop mall claiming that a person is killing shoppers left and right and that there are at least twenty dead. You send a swat team to the mall and you only find shoppers that are not very irritated with you. You can't find any dead bodies. No other witnesses. No blood. No evidence of shots being fired at all. All of these are lacks of evidence. And yet you would be pretty sure that the purported witnesses claims had been refuted by the lack of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok since @shunyadragon 's view is so clear perhaps you can explain it to me

Does he believes that falgellums where build mainly by neutral mutations selected by genetic drift or by positive mutations selected by natural selection ?. Which of the 2 mutations played a more relevant role in building flagellums?

And once again you used what very likely is a false dichotomy. I am going to give you a question that has a false dichotomy in it:

Is the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia a positive mutation or a negative mutation? We know that since it has an effect it is not neutral, that at least is not part of the false dichotomy but I thought that I needed to rule it out.

 

[exchemist]

Ok since @shunyadragon 's view is so clear perhaps you can explain it to me

Does he believes that falgellums where build mainly by neutral mutations selected by genetic drift or by positive mutations selected by natural selection ?. Which of the 2 mutations played a more relevant role in building flagellums?

No I'm not going down time-wasting rabbit holes for you.

 

[leroy]

And once again you used what very likely is a false dichotomy. I am going to give you a question that has a false dichotomy in it:

Is the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia a positive mutation or a negative mutation? We know that since it has an effect it is not neutral, that at least is not part of the false dichotomy but I thought that I needed to rule it out.

If it is a false dichotomy, he can always provide a third alternative and expose it as his answer

With respect to your question on sickle cell anemia it depends s on the circumstances, sometimes is beneficial sometimes it is negative. .... See this is how someone answers to a question clearly and unavi

 

[leroy]

No I'm not going down time-wasting rabbit holes for you.

Translation, you have no idea on what @shunyadragon 's view is,

 

[shmogie]

Issues of law are not directly applicable to scientific methods. The criteria is different for how evidence is used in law.



Hypothesis are not proven nor unproven.



No, the lack of evidence for the beginning (beginning of what?) just means at this point the hypothesis or theory(?}) cannot meet the criteria for falsification.



Counter evidence to the hypothesis would mean the hypothesis without evidence would fail the criteria for falsification.

I am not a scientist, my expertise is in another field. Since the thread is on intelligent design, there is one area related to the thread that I have studied over the years, abiogenesis.

Did it happen ? There is a large body of evidence that leads to the conclusion it did not. To be fair, there is some evidence, extremely focused, that leads to the conclusion that there are possibilities for it.

As extremely hesitant as many atheist evolutionists are to discuss it, evolution could never have begun without that elusive first functioning, reproducing organism.

I propose that without the significant evidence, conclusive evidence for the first organism as a result of the combination of likely chemicals in a likely environment whose likely characteristics are known, it could not have occurred.

Further, the atheists who believe it happened, had to have happened, are exercising great faith, and nothing more in their belief.

Why then is their faith that life on earth was the result of random combinations of chemicals more acceptable than my faith that life is the result of a specific creation by a capable creator ?