Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bifurcation of the mind

  1. Feb 18, 2007 #61
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  2. Feb 19, 2007 #62
    I base my statement on these sources:


     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  3. Feb 19, 2007 #63
    Dont the ID folks specifically point out that ID doesnt mention who or what the intelligence is?
     
  4. Feb 19, 2007 #64
    Is there any scientific theory about which recipes will taste good? Cooking is about making meals that taste good.
    Thats what the criticism should be about yes, but most of it isnt.

    This is another danger to science i think. Many scientists being so fervently opposed to ID, and science in general refusing to let the idea be considered within science, there is the real possibility that this will damage the reputation of science in the future. The argument against ID (as u pointed out) is not that is isnt true, but that it isnt scientific. When science thus opposes an idea which may very well be true, there is the danger that when it does turn out to be true, science will have the bomb explode in its face.

    I think it would be better for science to really look into the possibility of how (parts of) ID can be empirically researched. That way, when it starts looking like its true, science would avoid a "the sun rotates around the earth" scenario.

    My analogy hit the nail on the head, except that the brainsurgeon not only denies that the leg is broken, he also ridicules the orthopedic surgeon. Also, when we take the entire hospital as an anology for researching reality, then the orthopedic surgeon has a legitimate role in it, as does the brainsurgeon.
     
  5. Feb 19, 2007 #65
    Please don't confuse obvervable with observation. If you report that you saw the cat dead, then you are mistaken, you did not observe the cat at all. If you report that you saw it alive, same problem. If you report that you saw the cat half dead, half alive, then you reported what the theory told you, not what you actually observed.

    I would like to get back to what Feynman wrote because even though it has been many years since I read it, and have long forgotten the exact words, yet the meaning that I took away struck me deeply and I have never forgotten that. I recall that he wrote (not in so many words):
    1. Electrons are a theory.
    2. No one has seen an electron.
    3. Electrons are a theory BECAUSE no one has seen one.

    You indicated that you have a copy of the book. What did he actually write? What did he write in the surrounding paragraphs that blunted the force of these words? What did he write for scientific audiences that blunted the force of these words?
     
  6. Feb 19, 2007 #66

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Th crux of this whole ID thing is that the theory was put out there with no supporting evidence at all. Proponents of the theory then set about trying to prove the theory true from evidence already collected that supports evolution and natural selection theories. Where this differs from science is that they have proposed a theory with no shred of evidence to support it. They then try to prove that theory using already gathered evidence with pathetic arguments which is not scientific because scientists do not try and prove their theories. Science also differs from ID theory because it was only after empirical evidence was gathered that evolution was proposed to explain that evidence.

    You can therefore understand why scientists get a bit annoyed by this. Firstly there are people trying to push a theory that they say is a scientific theory when it is not (has no supporting evidence) and secondly when trying to explain how it can't be called scientific you get staunch illogical resistance. Thirdly the ceaseless publicising of this to the general public and the need to clean up the mess.
     
  7. Feb 19, 2007 #67

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They are still arguing it is some sort of "supreme being" or god. As I mentioned above, it's just an attempt to bring back creationism, and tries to do so by not specifying which god to try to force it into the public school classroom. It is still religion and still has zero scientific basis.

    The person whose site you linked to, if you read what's there, also clearly distinguishes that what he is talking about is not ID. He's actually very critical of it. He's not even arguing against evolution, or making any extraordinary claims. Most of what he's arguing against is the equally dogmatic, and incorrect, presentation of evolution in the classroom as being entirely dependent on random mutations and survival of the fittest, and presents genetic engineering as a mechanism of evolution as an example that departs from traditionally taught mechanisms.
     
  8. Feb 19, 2007 #68

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's your perception of what cooking is about. There is no "theory" on it, but yes, there is study of things like taste reception, the chemistry of how foods will interact, how different ingredients alter palatability, etc. That you don't need to understand the science to follow a recipe doesn't mean there is no scientific study of the subject.

    No, that is what most of the criticism is about. There are others who have problems with it on a social, not scientific, level as well, but that is not the issue the scientific community, as a whole, has with it.

    The burden of proof is on those who are proposing the "theory." When they can provide solid evidence supporting their claims, they will be listened to. If they continue to base their claims on what is NOT observed, and ignore all the existing evidence to the contrary, then it is NOT science.

    You're again making an assumption there that it will be true. When those who are proposing ID present the experiments or show how it can be empirically researched, again, scientists will be interested to hear it. They have not provided anything testable as yet.

    If you want to make up completely nonsense analogies, then here is the analogy of what ID is...it would be the preacher coming in and looking at the patient with the broken leg and telling him that because we didn't see him fall, his leg isn't broken, and when the doctor points out the fracture on the x-ray, he would argue that's just a deception of the creator making it look like it's broken when it isn't.
     
  9. Feb 19, 2007 #69
    Ive read many times that ID itself does not state who or what the intelligence is, that it simply speaks of 'intelligence'. But in the end it doesnt matter if the proponents think its god or a supreme being, and it doesnt matter if people think its not scientific. What matters is if its true or not.

    If someone says that the simplest lifeforms are intelligent and can genetically engineer their genomes, then that is a form of intelligent design. Its just not a supernatural god doing it.

    Btw i didnt mention him as an ID proponent, but as someone whose ideas could get stuck between the two extremes.
     
  10. Feb 19, 2007 #70
    There is scientific study of religion also, so what? My point was that when people say they can cook a fabulous meal, they shouldnt be ridiculed because its not a scientific theory.

    The opposite is equally true. If evolutionists managed to show that neodarwinism is capable of what they claim it is capable of, and back it up with empirical evidence instead of philosophical possibilities, then the ID folks will not have a foot left to stand on.

    Actually, no, i didnt make an assumption, i simply stated the fact that it was a possibility.

    What about this one: a person is shot 20 times. Each bullet has hit a finger or toe. The preacher looks at the patient and says that he was purposely shot. The doctor says that they were just random shots fired by a chaingun that went off by itself.
     
  11. Feb 19, 2007 #71

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You can't decide who is right based on their conclusions; you need to hear the complete arguments. But this is exactly the thing the IDers (such as you, perhaps) refuse to do. They refuse to accept that it takes long, hard work to figure stuff out...and instead believe, as above, that one can "arrive" at conclusions based on a casual glance at things.

    We don't make judgements based on appearances, we make them based on a system of reasoning that has proven to hold water. If the doctor's argument is based on a careful scientific study of the case that is backed up by sufficient evidence, and is verified independently by other doctors/forensics experts, I'd definitely believe them, rather than the preacher that arrived at a conclusion based simply on a perfunctory glance at the locations of the bullet shots.

    You couldn't have more clearly illustrated the problem with ID than you just did.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
  12. Feb 19, 2007 #72
    My irony meter is going nuts here.
     
  13. Feb 19, 2007 #73
    What do you want proof of macro evolution, or proof of micro evolution? They have both.

    ID doesn't have a leg to stand on anyway, it's the snake of the scientific community. Using spurious reasoning and faulty science to "prove" its case. It's selling snake oil and claiming its science. Another analogy would be the snake in the garden of Eden, wanting Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, or to put it another way to swallow it.:smile:
     
  14. Feb 19, 2007 #74

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I've recently thought of a new theory called P-theory. Now P-theory states that there are invisible organisms similar to pixies that cannot be detected. These organisms rarely interact with our universe as they are slightly phase shifted from the background spacetime, but when they do they tend to only stay for microseconds. Now there is no "proof" or "evidence" for P-theory but you know when you misplace something and you never find it, then a pixie came from their phase shifted universe and took it back with them. This is an example of one success of P-theory in the explaination of missing objects.

    Of course this isn't really "scientific" in the traditional sense but what matters at the end of the day is whether its true or not and I believe it is.
     
  15. Feb 19, 2007 #75
    In response to original poster:

    I think there's nothing incomprehensible here. Noone asks any questions when a scientist in his paper calculates the angle of light bending using Newton gravitation model and GR on the same page. Or, it is not a big deal if someone speaks two languages native to nations that are currently fight in war or something. So what's so wrong here?

    Personally, I like to think of multiple (scientific) theories and (non-scientific) beliefs we have as sort of reality "models" made to fit particular data about this reality. some do equally good, some not. some are better in explaining one things, some - in explainig other things. some are even incomparable. these "models" are like projections of some higher-dimensional truth humans will never really grasp.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
  16. Feb 19, 2007 #76
    This explains how no matter how many pens you buy, eventually you will end up with no pens, they must be pretty mischievous because this seems to happen more often when you desperately need a pen, like your on the phone and you need to note down someone's number.

    It also explains the famous, take all the screws out of a particular piece of equipment, and then when you've finished either A) your a few screws short (presumably the pixies have taken them) Or B) you have a couple of screws left over that don't appear to fit anything (The pixies have delivered two screws from somewhere else: thus maintaining the law of conservation of energy) It's quite brilliant really.:smile:
     
  17. Feb 19, 2007 #77
    How about the formation of organs?
     
  18. Feb 19, 2007 #78
    What like the eye? I can show you the theoretical process if you'd like? Why is this particularly inexplicable?

    If you mean generally:-

    http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-14108.html [Broken]
    www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/12/8116.pdf
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Feb 19, 2007 #79
    Its a system of reasoning that is proven to be flawed.
     
  20. Feb 19, 2007 #80
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

    Here's a better "intelligent design" argument from the Catholic Church.

    Although it's making some pretty odd conclusions, it's at least got some scientific learning wrapped up in its argument.


    Evolution is more than a mere hypothesis


    Pope John Paul II
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook