You've hit the nail on the head. -- Ben's Message Board

Tuesday, December 08, 09:57:08am [ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

Subject: You've hit the nail on the head.

Author:
Duane
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 09/29/04 2:56am
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Is it?" on 09/28/04 2:28pm

>On the other hand, in everyday languange people have
>taken the word "theory" to mean basically what the
>word "hypothesis" means in science. It basically means
>that they have a guess as to why things are as they
>are, allbeit an unvalidated guess.
>
>We have to ask ourselves how well ID meets the
>criteria to be a scientific theory, and we find it
>doesn't do a very good job because it fails to meet
>any of the stringent requirements that a scientific
>theory has to mandatorily accomodate.
>
>That only leaves one category; the commoner definition
>of the word. ID theory is more like a hypothesis than
>a theory. It simply isn't well defined enough to even
>begin to be a theory. It's just out there in a nebular
>way.

You're exactly right. It really isn't a scientific theory. It's a hypothesis.

An instructive example would be to look at the efforts of the ID community. Do they spend more time doing work in the lab, trying to scientifically validate their claims, or do they spend more time arguing with people, trying to CONVINCE them that their re-interpretation of the data is correct?

>The way I see it, ID has been and never will be a
>scientific theory, and that's why we can't treat it as
>though it's a scientific theory.

And that was my point. (though you managed to say it in much less time or space than it took me...)

Duane

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

Why not a scientific theory? Wade A. Tisthammer 10/ 9/04 6:46pm

Things I'd consider Damoclese 10/ 9/04 8:12pm

Scientific theory or good scientific theory? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 10/16/04 3:12pm

Comments -- Damoclese, 10/16/04 5:44pm

My comments -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 10/31/04 2:44pm

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>>On the other hand, in everyday languange people have >>taken the word "theory" to mean basically what the >>word "hypothesis" means in science. It basically means >>that they have a guess as to why things are as they >>are, allbeit an unvalidated guess. >> >>We have to ask ourselves how well ID meets the >>criteria to be a scientific theory, and we find it >>doesn't do a very good job because it fails to meet >>any of the stringent requirements that a scientific >>theory has to mandatorily accomodate. >> >>That only leaves one category; the commoner definition >>of the word. ID theory is more like a hypothesis than >>a theory. It simply isn't well defined enough to even >>begin to be a theory. It's just out there in a nebular >>way. > >You're exactly right. It really isn't a scientific >theory. It's a hypothesis. > >An instructive example would be to look at the efforts >of the ID community. Do they spend more time doing >work in the lab, trying to scientifically validate >their claims, or do they spend more time arguing with >people, trying to CONVINCE them that their >re-interpretation of the data is correct? > >>The way I see it, ID has been and never will be a >>scientific theory, and that's why we can't treat it as >>though it's a scientific theory. > >And that was my point. (though you managed to say it >in much less time or space than it took me...) > >Duane

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.