Without reading it, are they still pushing the young earth creationist stuff?
Some people are: http://creationmuseum.org/
Topic: New breakthrough in science hints at Intelligent Design - page 2. (Read 7640 times)
Some people are: http://creationmuseum.org/
Without reading it, are they still pushing the young earth creationist stuff?
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
It's not even that intelligent of a design!
If there's intelligence behind this, then it intentionally saw fit to have a solid 95 percent of us tortured in a variety of fun different ways. Hitler, nukes on Japan, centuries of people being tortured for different reasons. Poverty, hunger, and absolute crap!
Meanwhile the same intelligence decided that a very small percentage of it's pets are special, and worthy of having everything they ever may have wanted out of life.
If there's some kind of intelligent god that had control over everything, isn't it arguably a giant, malevolent dick?
If intelligent design had any science behind it then why do I not see it published in scientific journals? Why? because the lack of evidence would quickly crush it as a theory. Unlike evolution, which has seen no contrary findings in over 150 years of research.
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
It's not even that intelligent of a design!
If there's intelligence behind this, then it intentionally saw fit to have a solid 95 percent of us tortured in a variety of fun different ways.
Meanwhile the same intelligence decided that a very small percentage of it's pets are special, and worthy of having everything they ever may have wanted out of life.
If there's some kind of intelligent god that had control over everything, isn't it arguably a giant, malevolent dick?
OK, well I guess Euclid's Elements was just a load of rubbish then. Which would make Newtonian physics pretty baseless too.
Or maybe assuming is equivalent to knowing in a scientific context? Otherwise why bother making assumptions if we have doubts about their soundness? E.g.: assuming that Earth orbits the Sun, we do [ whatever measurements and stuff ]. According to Newtonian physics, the sun should also swivel a little bit due to the mass of the earth pulling on it (like an athlete doing a hammer throw), but we wouldn't know any of that without relying on Euclid's postulates.
Or maybe assuming is equivalent to knowing in a scientific context? Otherwise why bother making assumptions if we have doubts about their soundness? E.g.: assuming that Earth orbits the Sun, we do [ whatever measurements and stuff ]. According to Newtonian physics, the sun should also swivel a little bit due to the mass of the earth pulling on it (like an athlete doing a hammer throw), but we wouldn't know any of that without relying on Euclid's postulates.
That's math, not science.
people, people, its cyclic. to form a hypothesis one must first have some data, and to recognize something as data, one must first have a hypothesis.
In other words i can not ask the question "What is the floopliwuply made of?" when i don't know what a floopliwuply is or that it even exists.
In other words i can not ask the question "What is the floopliwuply made of?" when i don't know what a floopliwuply is or that it even exists.
A hypothesis is an idea. It requires no data. It requires only a direction in which one might look for data.
My hypothesis is that the floopliwuply is a random string- not a word. I can collect data on meanings of words and random strings now.
Papercraft for the win. I guess I'm God now.
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Actually, looking for "intelligent design" is not a religion. As practiced and conceived, it typically is a search for evidence or proof of a supreme being. This is a logical fallacy. If we did find evidence of intelligent design, what it would prove is the existence of a "prior intelligence of high order". EG, something millions of years ago that was pretty darn smart. If someone makes the leap from that to thinking they found proof of a supreme being, that's their problem.When we go listen on big radio telescopes for ET, we are looking for radio waves that are "intelligent designed". That is no religion, obviously. Neither is it science unless you conceive of it in terms of the null hypothesis. But simply listening to signals and reviewing them for patterns doesn't pass my smell test for "science". Finding a dinosaur bone or looking at a star in the sky is not science and does not require science. Science may be performed upon those observations, of course.
people, people, its cyclic. to form a hypothesis one must first have some data, and to recognize something as data, one must first have a hypothesis.
In other words i can not ask the question "What is the floopliwuply made of?" when i don't know what a floopliwuply is or that it even exists.
In other words i can not ask the question "What is the floopliwuply made of?" when i don't know what a floopliwuply is or that it even exists.
A hypothesis is an idea. It requires no data. It requires only a direction in which one might look for data.
My hypothesis is that the floopliwuply is a random string- not a word. I can collect data on meanings of words and random strings now.
people, people, its cyclic. to form a hypothesis one must first have some data, and to recognize something as data, one must first have a hypothesis.
In other words i can not ask the question "What is the floopliwuply made of?" when i don't know what a floopliwuply is or that it even exists.
In other words i can not ask the question "What is the floopliwuply made of?" when i don't know what a floopliwuply is or that it even exists.
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Actually science starts with a hypothesis
How about..
Science starts with 'self' (interchangeably referred to as intelligence or consciousness) -- there's got to be "somebody home", so to speak. People have it. Supercomputers don't.
Then they receive information -- sensory inputs, whatever.
Then the data are interpreted. This includes forming a hypothesis about what (really) happened.
And curiosity. The "aim" thing kinda ruins it for me because it seems like a formulaic crutch that students are taught in schools. The curiosity thing provides motivation and will to gather more data and continue the process.
What I like about this is that anyone can basically be a mobile laboratory. Actual laboratories merely extend people's capabilities with cool sensory gadgets.
Supercomputers only exist so raw data can be crunched, algebraic formulas can be simplified, results can get published to people to interpret.
Frankly, Science doesn't give a flying damn about Solipsistic Existential Epistemology. It would rather count things.
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Actually science starts with a hypothesis
...
We didn't make it that way. We observed it. Math is neither a superset nor a subset of nature. It's a protocol, expressed in many languages including base 12 and Roman Numerals. Our scale, the decimal point that was the atom, then the quark and string, and now this geometric construct is relative. The microcosm is the macrocosm.
EDIT: Smell consists of extremely quantifiable microscopic particles affecting our nervous system.
Don't be such a philosophical zombie! We didn't make it that way. We observed it. Math is neither a superset nor a subset of nature. It's a protocol, expressed in many languages including base 12 and Roman Numerals. Our scale, the decimal point that was the atom, then the quark and string, and now this geometric construct is relative. The microcosm is the macrocosm.
EDIT: Smell consists of extremely quantifiable microscopic particles affecting our nervous system.
I was talking about the 100s of feelings of smell. E.g.: "wow, this rose smell is beautifully rosy!"* Instead of "Alert! My atmospheric sensors are detecting aromatic carbon chains number 485! Exterminate them!"
*Notice how those descriptions of qualia are always tautological? A rose smells rosy. Red looks red. Blue looks blue. A high-pitched squeal sounds like a high-pitched squeal. Of course, whether my sensation of blue is the same as yours, is another matter. That's why the Wikipedia page on qualia is so huge, it seems that scientists don't know where to start with things we know absolutely but cannot prove. Blue always looks "blue" to everyone who can see blue? Or "sensory relativism", kinda like synaesthesia but mixed between different people?
I'm glad we agree. The assertion of intelligent design belongs in the hazy realm of subjective qualia, not fact, physics, math or science.
EDIT: I'm a behaviorist. I'm immune to the P zombie argument.
The sciences routinely have to deal with various assumptions, postulates, axioms, and so on -- they all rely on that hazy realm to provide a starting point with things we know but can't falsify. And indeed, facts that can't be falsified do seem a bit more reliable than 'facts' that could eventually be shown to be wrong.
And by calling the above things a tautology, that wasn't a criticism, it was merely a statement of fact. It would be equally uninformative to say that the letter 'A' looks like an 'A' instead of a 'B', unless you're like me and are able to metaphysically see those letters, in addition to behaviourally storing the data in your biological data banks.
Nope. That's where science beats speculative postulating. Science starts with things we assume, not things we know. The hypothesis is an assumption/question, rather than the answer/result.
It's based on observable, repeatable phenomena. Nothing else meets the standard for acceptable, mathematically within-a-stated-acceptable-margin-of-error scientific data on which results are published.
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Actually science starts with a hypothesis
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Life suddenly makes a lot more sense.
I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Now I have something besides a banana to give me nightmares 
If you draw a perfect circle, then measure its diameter, measure its circumference, divide circumference by diameter, you get PI, always.
There's no intelligent design there, it just IS, it's fact, it's math, a circle is defined as an 2d object where the diameter is the same measured from any edge to another passing through the center, no intelligence, no magic, just math.
Just as 1+1 = 2, no intelligence, it just is.
If these facts are true, and there are other facts that ring true regardless of circumstance, then you have solid building blocks for a complex system without design.
There's no intelligent design there, it just IS, it's fact, it's math, a circle is defined as an 2d object where the diameter is the same measured from any edge to another passing through the center, no intelligence, no magic, just math.
Just as 1+1 = 2, no intelligence, it just is.
If these facts are true, and there are other facts that ring true regardless of circumstance, then you have solid building blocks for a complex system without design.
Whoa, slow down people!
We take "1+1=2" for granted, but it's easy to forget the learning process that every child (or civilisation) goes through, that they start off in a world without numbers. It takes intelligence to imagine that there exists a "1" of something, and if that 1 exists "again", we can create the idea of "2" to represent "1 and 1", and so on. If nature somehow worked differently, presumably the maths deduced from it would also be different.
So when you say "it just is" you skip the point that "1+1=2" is true because we made it that way.
To me it seems that what we normally think of as maths, is deduced from whatever nature provides us with. Things are divisible? OK, so we have numbers. Things can be arranged in space? OK, so we have dimensions. Trouble is, that would make maths a subset of nature, and therefore it cannot fully describe everything about its superset.
Hence the whole god / intelligent design / whatever she-bang. It could be said that our "inner being" that witnesses 1000s of different smells and sensations that simply can't be explained in terms of "microscopic Lego particles configured into Von Neumann machines", is the living embodiment of mathematical axioms: the things that are set to 'true' but can't be proven.
EDIT: Smell consists of extremely quantifiable microscopic particles affecting our nervous system.
I was talking about the 100s of feelings of smell. E.g.: "wow, this rose smell is beautifully rosy!"* Instead of "Alert! My atmospheric sensors are detecting aromatic carbon chains number 485! Exterminate them!"
*Notice how those descriptions of qualia are always tautological? A rose smells rosy. Red looks red. Blue looks blue. A high-pitched squeal sounds like a high-pitched squeal. Of course, whether my sensation of blue is the same as yours, is another matter. That's why the Wikipedia page on qualia is so huge, it seems that scientists don't know where to start with things we know absolutely but cannot prove. Blue always looks "blue" to everyone who can see blue? Or "sensory relativism", kinda like synaesthesia but mixed between different people?
I'm glad we agree. The assertion of intelligent design belongs in the hazy realm of subjective qualia, not fact, physics, math or science.
EDIT: I'm a behaviorist. I'm immune to the P zombie argument.
If there is a designer then why wont she reveal herself?
If you draw a perfect circle, then measure its diameter, measure its circumference, divide circumference by diameter, you get PI, always.
There's no intelligent design there, it just IS, it's fact, it's math, a circle is defined as an 2d object where the diameter is the same measured from any edge to another passing through the center, no intelligence, no magic, just math.
Just as 1+1 = 2, no intelligence, it just is.
If these facts are true, and there are other facts that ring true regardless of circumstance, then you have solid building blocks for a complex system without design.
There's no intelligent design there, it just IS, it's fact, it's math, a circle is defined as an 2d object where the diameter is the same measured from any edge to another passing through the center, no intelligence, no magic, just math.
Just as 1+1 = 2, no intelligence, it just is.
If these facts are true, and there are other facts that ring true regardless of circumstance, then you have solid building blocks for a complex system without design.
Whoa, slow down people!
We take "1+1=2" for granted, but it's easy to forget the learning process that every child (or civilisation) goes through, that they start off in a world without numbers. It takes intelligence to imagine that there exists a "1" of something, and if that 1 exists "again", we can create the idea of "2" to represent "1 and 1", and so on. If nature somehow worked differently, presumably the maths deduced from it would also be different.
So when you say "it just is" you skip the point that "1+1=2" is true because we made it that way.
To me it seems that what we normally think of as maths, is deduced from whatever nature provides us with. Things are divisible? OK, so we have numbers. Things can be arranged in space? OK, so we have dimensions. Trouble is, that would make maths a subset of nature, and therefore it cannot fully describe everything about its superset.
Hence the whole god / intelligent design / whatever she-bang. It could be said that our "inner being" that witnesses 1000s of different smells and sensations that simply can't be explained in terms of "microscopic Lego particles configured into Von Neumann machines", is the living embodiment of mathematical axioms: the things that are set to 'true' but can't be proven.
EDIT: Smell consists of extremely quantifiable microscopic particles affecting our nervous system.
Jump to: