DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? ...

Courts per se are not proper adjudicators of scientific theory.

IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
newsgroup. It would be off-topic.

This argument is a red-herring.

No, it is spot on.

Science has a philosophy
of knowledge. That philosophy of knowledge is being questioned.
It is not a 'theology based' attack (at least not exclusively).
The attackers claim they have the ability to describe the
problems with today's scientific system and propose to do so
using *science* (not theology). They should be heard, and then
refuted or not.

"Intelligent Design" unless it is very ill-considered misnomer,
relies on the presumption of a divine being. That is the realm
of religion, not science.

A claim to be able to demonstrate intelligent design
scientifically, without theology is obvious double speak.

Then you're not reading the IDers I have. While many/most
of them *are* Theists, their science claims do not spring
from the presumption of the Divine. Quite the opposite,
they claim that observed complexity ("observed" by *science*)
cannot be adequately explained by proesses like mutation
and natural selection. They argue that the science drives
you to the presumption of an author, not the other way around.

Accepting off-topic papers into a journal or at a conference not
only dilutes the material being presented and utilizes resources
that were ostensibly budgeted for the specialty in question but
it also threatens to disrupt an otherwise scholarly and cooperative
atmosphere.

The IDers have made proposals that are specific within sub-branches
of science. Those narrow proposals should be evaluated within
their respective disciplines.

Do you suppose the the people working in those fields as editors
etc are of the opinion that 'ID' fundamentally lies outside of
their specific sub-branches of science?

I can certainly come up with an intelligent design theory
to explain physical phenomena, but I do not have the gall
to expect _Physics Today_ to publish it.

It depends on whether you are propsing physics or metaphysics.
The IDers attempt to do both and do not separate them well,
IMHO which is at least where some of the confusion lies.

Science has always observed aboundant phenomena that COULD be
explained by invoking some sort of intelligence making a choice,
for example between which molecules pass thorugh a membrane and
which do not.

You seldom see authors calling each other names, insulting their
integrity or questioning their motives when they disagree over
what glue to use on patio furniture. How does that compare to
Off-Topic threads?

You should read more history of Science. There has been *plenty* of name
calling, ad hominem attacks, questioning the virtue, honor, method, and
competence of one group of scientists by another.

Which has nothing to do with patio furniture.

I was responding you *your* initial point, "You seldom see
authors calling each other names ..."

There is a whole lot
of "Jane You Ignorant Slut" level of diatribe within the Scientific
community from time to time. Come to think of it, it's kind of how I see
them treating the IDers.

Which was my point.

Again, I am not defending ID, I am defending
the idea that they ought to be *heard* and evaluated openly and fairly
for their Scientific claims.

Like everyone else they have a right to express their opinions.
Also, like everyone else, they have no right to demand that anyone
in particular listen to them.

If the publishers of _Nature_ or whatever, do not want to publish
their articles or the sponsors of a conference do not want to
invite them to give their papers or have them put up posters that
is the right of those publishers or sponsors.

The 'IDers' have no right to demand that other people do any
damn thing at all for them.

No publisher or sponsoring organization has any responsibility
to let any particular fringe group appear simply in order to
satisfy your misplaced sense of fair play.

Absolutely right. But if the Science Establishment
refuses to hear them, then the Science Establishment jolly
well better be still when the IDers want their theories
taught in the schools as (possible) *science*. The heart of
the whole business culturally is that the Science Establishment
want's neither to hear/refute/affirm the IDers AND wants
them kept out of school. That's a foul in my book. If their
ideas are not science, than this needs to be demonstrated so
as to keep them off the science curricula. Ignoring them
or freezing them out of the discussion is just cheap tactics.

When a notion is rejected outright by mainsteam science
it is almost always because it is unmitigated crap in the
scientific sense, regardless of what social/political or
religious value it may have. Scientists are not terrified
at the prospect of someone flinging crap at them from a
podium so much as they are disgusted.

Nonsense. Most new Scientific theories go through a period of
outright rejection by the Science Establishment.

I can think of a few exmples but interestingly, nearly all
in the field of medicine and was outright rejected, not
by scientists, but by physicians. Ask any scientist in
any branch of biology that ever contributes to medical
knowledge and he or she will assure you that doctors are
not scientists.

There are also examples of scientists rejecting the notion
that certain engineering goals could be achieved, like
building a hydrogen bomb. But those are disagreements as
to practical applicability.

The law of conservation of energy and in particular the
concept of entropy were controversial but I'd have to look
into it further beofor concluding that they were 'outright
rejected'.

So how about some examples of scientific theories, outright
rejected at first, which were ultimately accepted?

Most new scientific theories that are eventually accepted,
and indeed, many that are unltimately rejected, are immediately
accepted as _scientifically viable_ from the outset.

Examples include the evolutionary theories of Lamarck, Wallace
and Darwin, the Copernican theory of the Solar System the
Corpuscular theory of light, Special and General relativity,
the Big Bang theory, quantum theory. Not everyone in the field
accepted them from the outset but they weren't rejected as
not appropriate for publication or debate.

OK, "outright rejected" was an overstatement on my part.
I should have better said, "met with considerable resistance
at first because of the inertia of the prevalent scientific
orthodoxy." Better?

"Mainstream Science"
rejects things because it has a vested interest (funding, prestige)
in the status quo.
So much so that there is a well-worn saying
in the community that "Funeral by funeral, Science progresses."

So well worn *I* never heard it befor.

Strange, you seem well versed in matter scientific. It is
a semi-famous quote. I'll see if I can find a cite.

The IDers may be dead wrong, *but they should be heard.* I am
trained in the Sciences, though my personal specialty is
more in mathematics.

Perhaps you are familiar with the story about the debate
on the existance of God between Diederot and Euler?

I am troubled by a discipline that claims
to arrive at knowledge by "objective means" and then scurries to
circle the wagons the first time an outsider shows up with
an idea that is fundamentally different than the current orthdoxy.

'IDers' are plainly not the only people whose philosophy has
been excluded from the public schools or scientific journals.

Lots of people who claim to to have theories based on sound
science do not get published. (Well a few self-publish on
UseNet). The obvious difference between those and the 'IDers'
is that the former generally do not have well-funded and
political and religiously motivated sponsors.

But sometimes they do. Back in the early 1980's there was
an attempt to force a more Bibically literal brand of
Creationism into the scientific literature and the public
schools. They also relied on legal arguments but died
back after a few setbacks in the court system. Whereas
'Creatiionsim' and the oxymoronic 'Scientific Creationsim'
were ckommonly heard back then, there was not one peep
about 'Intelligent Design'. While it may be that the
origins of 'ID' go back befor then, it was not until
that set back for America's Taliban wannabes that "Intelligen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Design" began to get any publicity. Not, IMHO a coincidence.]

You prove my point. You just *can't* get through this without
going ad hominem - it diminished your argument considerably.

The bottom line is that 'Intelligent Design' is a plain
english statement of the existance of a designer.

Some religious sects for not speak their name for the Divine
Being for religions I do not quite understand. But I do
understand why the "Intelligent Designer" do not speak
the name for their "Designer". It for the same reasons
that some other cults won't tell you that the beleive in
(non-divne) extraterestrial beings.

More ad homina - not relevant or to the point.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/