The Black Vault

humphreys wrote:Screw the scientific method. If only we could go back in time and ask the writers of the Bible about how the Universe works.

Now those guys really knew their stuff

The scientific method is unquestionable in its pursuit of truth. The problem is, the scientific community doesn't follow the scientific method. If a result points to something they don't like, it gets rejected.

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:Screw the scientific method. If only we could go back in time and ask the writers of the Bible about how the Universe works.

Now those guys really knew their stuff

The scientific method is unquestionable in its pursuit of truth. The problem is, the scientific community doesn't follow the scientific method. If a result points to something they don't like, it gets rejected.

That's not really true. If that were the case, quantum physics would never have been accepted.

If a result defies what we currently know to be true, then it is certainly approached with a lot more skepticism, and it takes longer, and a lot more work to get it accepted, but it can be done.

If something is undeniable, clear, repeatable, and observable, it will become accepted scientific truth, no question. The problem is usually when such a result occurs that defies what we know, the vast, vast majority of the time the result is in error, and skepticism is warranted. A great example is the recent case where scientists claimed to have found neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. Rightly, it was taken with great skepticism, and as expected, the result was found to be likely in error.

Ask any modern-day scientist who ever published an article in a scientifc journal, merely entertaining the idea of intelligent design. Career: over.

Scientists--if they want to be taken seriously by the "community"--dare not tread in certain waters. They're simply off-limits.

There absolutely is a predisposition and bias in the scientific community and anything or anyone outside their circle of trust is labeled "fringe" and marginalized. It's not to say those outside the circle can't speak to an audience anymore, they just can't get funded and their hypotheses fall on deaf ears and don't get published, etc.

frrostedman wrote:Ask any modern-day scientist who ever published an article in a scientifc journal, merely entertaining the idea of intelligent design. Career: over.

Scientists--if they want to be taken seriously by the "community"--dare not tread in certain waters. They're simply off-limits.

There absolutely is a predisposition and bias in the scientific community and anything or anyone outside their circle of trust is labeled "fringe" and marginalized. It's not to say those outside the circle can't speak to an audience anymore, they just can't get funded and their hypotheses fall on deaf ears and don't get published, etc.

Intelligent design claims usually aren't scientific, that's why. Most often they follow none of the principles of science.

The Vatican states intelligent design is not science:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/storie ... 600273.htm

A judge ruling stating such, also:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns ... nt-design/

If it's actual science, even fringe claims get published, although they may be ruthlessly attacked.

One can certainly attack certain claims of evolution, and there have been published articles doing just that. The debate over the mechanisms of evolution still rages on today, many of the claims being extremely controversial and going very much against the grain, but they get published as they are scientific claims.

Even parapsychologists have had articles published in respected journals because, although complete bunk in my view, it is still science. Bad science is more likely to get published than no science at all, and that's why ID, for the most part, is a non-starter. There have been published, peer-reviewed articles supporting ID, though, so it is possible, it just has to be done right, which is rarely the case as intelligent design claims are supernatural at heart.

But the idea of the scientific model is to pursue truth, wherever it takes you. But the road to intelligent design has a detour sign on it. You may say it's because the scientific community somehow knows it's not worth pursuing. But that's hogwash. Intelligent Design has not been proven; it's just a subject the scientific community avoids because they are predisposed to reject it.

The point is--the true scientific method is to consider all possible options valid on some level until disproven. The scientific "community" however, just doesn't operate that way.

frrostedman wrote:But the idea of the scientific model is to pursue truth, wherever it takes you. But the road to intelligent design has a detour sign on it. You may say it's because the scientific community somehow knows it's not worth pursuing. But that's hogwash. Intelligent Design has not been proven; it's just a subject the scientific community avoids because they are predisposed to reject it.

The point is--the true scientific method is to consider all possible options valid on some level until disproven. The scientific "community" however, just doesn't operate that way.

The idea of the scientific method is indeed to pursue truth, but the method itself is designed to be able to accurately and reliably pursue truth through things like repeated observation, making predictions, and so on.

The fact that there is no science to ID means it cannot be reliably proved or disproved - there literally is nowhere to go with it. If there's no science to it, there is nothing to investigate, and it will forever remain just an idea.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that ID would require that the universe be deterministic?

A supreme being could create a Universe with randomness in its function, couldn't he?

humphreys wrote:A supreme being could create a Universe with randomness in its function, couldn't he?

Like a programmer with access to a randomness function.

Yep exactly like that.

I dunno how a supreme being would get a function like that though. What does a supreme being program on, anyway?