On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:59:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:47:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I have simply challenged the notion that science should have a fixed
scope for all time, especially when within it, entire ways of
describing things change dramatically.

Then it hasn't got a fixed scope for all time has it?

I can understand that people might be frightened by the thought of
that concept, but I'm not.
No..you are not. you would like to debase it I am sure to a mere crystal
gazing democracy where anyones ideas no matter how crackpot have equal
weight with anyone else's.

I haven't suggested that at all. All that I have suggested is the
possibility that the rules for the definition of science could change
over time just as some of the aspects within its frameworks have.


well they can't. Not just because a bunch of religious nuts and their
apologists want it that way.

I'm not commenting on what a bunch of religious nuts might or might
not want to do. That's up to them.



Karl Popper spent several years coming up with reasons why things like
Marxism and Freudianism failed to be scientific..he presented his
conclusions, and by and large they were accepted by the scientific
community, and happily for us, they also preclude creationism, crystal
ball futurology, and many many other pseudo sciences from being
considered valid.

They may be accepted by the scientific community, but the very fact
that he introduced a new way of framing science suggests that it is
possible for that to be done.

On that basis, it is not reasonable to exclude the possibility of
further development or change to that.

It may never happen, but it is not reasonable to draw a line under it
and to say that there is no way that change could happen.




If you don't like that, tough. But as long as there is a scientific
community exercising direct control over what science is, its down to
you and the others who want things changed,

Again you are attempting to put words in my mouth. At no point have I
suggested that I wanted anything to be changed. All that I have done
is to suggest the possibility of change. That is quite different.




to present themselves in the
way he did, and show by force of reason, that there is a new and logical
reason to consider that something science does not include, should
include it.

So far you have failed, utterly and miserably.

I haven't failed, because I didn'[t set out to do any such thing in
the first place..




You are laboring under the woolly minded preconception so typical of
the self indulgent that what people think, is important in a scientific
context.

I am labouring under no such preconception at all.


The whole thrust of science has been to weasel out what is
left when you remove peoples beliefs and desires and imaginations from
the mixture.

I don't disagree with that concept.



If you want to reverse that trend, you want to destroy science.

I certainly have not sought to do that or anything else - only to
float the thought that definitions could change in the future.








Sorry. That would not be science. There is an entry exam for science,
and the ultimate test is that it has to be useful and work. Even if it
predicts useless things, it still has to predict them accurately.
theories which do not lead to testable predictions are not, never have
been, and never can be part of science.

That all assumes that the basis, tests and definitions are complete
and could never possibly change. I think that that is a very big
assumption.


yes, but a correct one, since its inherent in the definition of what we
call science.

It is, based on what we understand it to be today. However, you
already talked about Popper's work, and it is entirely reasonable to
expect that there might be further development of this or alternatives
to it in the future.


You cannot say 'I define oranges to be round orange colored fruit' and
then say - 'oh well, I fancy a pint of lager, but I am at the orange
basket in the supermarket, and because I am too lazy to move, I insist
that oranges be refined to include bottles of mass produced alcoholic
cats' ****' and expect to be taken for anything other than a lazy
drunken git.

?????

This is nonsense.







They may have merit, but they do no belong in science. Period. Asking me
to change that is tantamount to taking a chimpanzee, sticking it in the
White House and calling it a world leader. You COULD do it, but the
consequences would be dire.

That's already been done....


As to who sets those standards..it is those whose bent lies in
developing the philosophy of science, and whose ideas gain the most
acceptance within the broad community of those who have, by dint of
passing THEIR exams, risen to positions of prominence in the scientific
community.

Science is almost as full of charlatans as any other field, including
politics. Some aspects, have a highly politicised dimension.


They are not scientists.

Possibly not, but they do sometimes flourish quite well.

And actually, its far less full of charlatans
than most other professions, because charlatans get booted out fairly
quickly. Again you confuse what science really is, with what people who
call themselves scientists would have you believe it is.

I am quite clear on that point.



There is a difference, but, one assumes, you can't tell it.


You might assume. I don't.




Unlike politics, where any arsehole can announce they know how to run te
country, and be believed enough to get elected.

I also don't think that the educators should be the only ones who
should define what goes into the curriculum. I think that parents
should have a strong input to that. Again, an educator might find
that threatening.

I am not an educator. For the purposes of this discussion you may call
me a student of comparative religion and as philosopher, of science partly.

BUT the point still stands. ID and similar theories are 'metaphysical'
Not science. They are suitable for the philosophy class, they don't
belong in the science class. That is simply not open to debate.

That is only true if you consider the terms and definitions of science
to be fixed and complete for all time.

They are.
Insofar as your modifications would apply, anyway. They are subject to
change, but not in the way you want them to.

Again you are suggesting that I *want* some sort of change.

Actually I am far more comfortable with the notion that things remain
the same in some aspects. However, I don't let that prevent me from
considering that they *might* change.






Science
is what science defines itself to be..and as an outsider you do not get
to vote.

This sounds very similar to the definition of an organised religion.


So what? There is a difference, in that sciences' definitions work, and
achieve pragmatic results within the field it restricts itself to.

Well..... someone operating within the realms of organised religion
could well say the same thing.



Religion, however contests that its knowledge is all encompassing, and
of absolute validity. Science doesn't even attempt to do that. It is
completely aware that its knowledge is relative, it has no final
answers, and that withing the discipline of what it seeks to do, it is
impossible to seek any.

Yet you say that it is not possible for the definition and boundaries
of science ever to change (if I have understood you correctly - please
correct that if not).



Perhaps that is the true answer to your problem

I don't have a problem.


Science lacks the
arrogance of religion, and refuses to take it on board.


It seems rather arrogant to me to exclude the possibility of change to
the scope and definition of science at some point in the future.





If you do not like it, your choices are simple.

1/. debase science by political manipulation to the point where it is no
longer of any use, stop all technological and intellectual progress, and
go back to the medieval mindset.

2/. Accept that metaphysical ideas belong outside of the science class
and take them there and indeed lobby for more philosophy and religious
discussion.

3/. Shut the **** up and accept things the way they are.

I'll support you on 2/. and 3/. but never on 1/.



4/ Consider the possibility that the definitions of science and
metaphysics may not be completely correct and complete as they are
today and could be different in the future.


That is as I have pointed out time and time again, as meaningless an
option as saying 'consider that the sun will not rise tomorrow, and
develop a science to explain why not'

It is not, a scientific option.

If it isn't, then science becomes self referential and unnecessarily
limited.




I don't mind considering it, as long as you don;'t mind me dismissing it
as utterly pointless in about 15 seconds.


If you wish to do that you can. I would prefer to accept the
possibility that it might at some point, even though it would appear
to have a low probability based on where we are today.





--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:35:07 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:41:42 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK, I understand. However, on that basis a creationist may also say
that he is dealing with predictability. It may not be on the same set
of tests, admittedly, but then who is to say what the tests should and
shouldn't be?

So if I bet on Red Rum winning the Grand National how do you test if my
prediction is correct?

It could be on the form of the horse or the jockey or both and even
the nature of the course.

Equally, it could be that I have inside knowledge as you did that all
the other horses have been nobbled. This is relatively unlikely, but
could not be excluded.

Prdeiction. How do you test if my prediction was correct?

[Hint: the answer is that you test my prediction against reality]

We don't differ on that point.


[Hint2: none of the ideas of ID produce predictions that can be tested against
reality]

I've already said several times that I am not particularly interested
in what the supporters of ID might seek to do.



--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:36:14 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I'm simply bringing you back to where I came in and said that all of
the subject matter is, in one way or another, theory.

I then raised the possibility that scientific perspectives could
change in the future.

In the context of bringing ID within science.

No. You put in that context. I certainly did not address my
comments specifically to it or anything else specific.

But that's where you don't
understand the meaning of your words.


Yes I do, thanks.


--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:13:05 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:27:43 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



Andy Hall wrote:

Even more.

Andy, I think you need to stop digging. NP and John have given some
superb reasoning for their viewpoints, I feel that you are failing to do
so.


Sorry, but I don't regard myself as digging at all.

I was thinking of changing the subject to 'well-making'. ;-)


That's up to you. I don't limit myself to your definitions.

--

..andy

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:34:32 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:04:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It would only be a competitor if scrutinised from scientific
perspective. I haven't studied the detail and don't intend to,
because it is its own set of stuff.

It has been scrutinised. It fails every single test. It's not science.

It's not science as you understand it.

It's not science. Take away observation, discussion, experimentation,
prediction, and changing ideas in the light of experimental results and what
you are left with cannot possibly be science. That's what you are defending -
science being still science once you have removed eerything that makes it
science.

This is not to say that I think or don't think that there is or isn't
any validity in ID at all.
And there is just as much (ie none) validity in your argument.

It surprises me when on the one hand people accuse the ID protagonists
of dogma; but then say, quite dogmatically that it has been
scrutinised and fails all the tests.

This presupposes that the tests are appropriate and are not extensible
or changeable over time.

I think that that is a big supposition.

Crap. We are not talking about the tests being appropriate; we are talking
about removing them altogether.

You're talking about removing them altogether, I'm not.


If you haven't appreciated that there is a
slight difference there then you are failing to learn anything.

I have not said that there wasn't a difference - obviously there is.



--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:08:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I think that it is possible that today's definitions for requirements
for scientific theories could change in the future, simply because I
would not want to take the position that it could never happen.
Whether I think that it *will* happen or *should* happen is quite
another matter.

Well you are intrinsically wrong. Squares will never become circles, no
matter how much you pretend they are.


The analogy that you have made is intrinsically wrong because it is
too simplistic

--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:10:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Do you think that science isn't open to being challenged in terms of
the boundaries as well as the detail?

Yes. Its not open to being challenged on the boundaries..except possibly
by the very best thinkers and philosophers we have.

I didn't say who should do this any more than I said when and to what
degree or on what basis - only that I was not going to exclude the
possibility



And you aren't one, for sure, and nether are the god botherers.


I have simply floated the
thought that perhaps its scope could change in the future. I haven't
said when or by how much. I would hardly describe it as an attack.


Nor was the war on terror a war really..but lots of people died.

This is a meaningless comparison

--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:13:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:43:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, if an individual considers the issues and takes a position
for himself, then I think that that is quite a different matter.
You're weaseling out. I don't blame you - but the whole of this thread is
about a group of people trying to hijack science lessons in order to promote
their own religious ideas.


I'm not weaseling out at all.


I'm simply bringing you back to where I came in and said that all of
the subject matter is, in one way or another, theory.

but at lest the theories are scientific, and tested, and not found wanting

Within the scope of science as it is today.



Whereas the theories you would have us countenance, are unscientific,
untestable, and therefore worthless. In science.

They are untestable at the current state of our knowledge




I then raised the possibility that scientific perspectives could
change in the future.


But they can't. Not on the matter as to what constitutes a scientific
theory. Not in the way you mean anyway. Its not an issue of dogma, its
an issue of impossibility.


Based on our understanding today.







--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:05:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, if an individual considers the issues and takes a position
for himself, then I think that that is quite a different matter.

You're weaseling out. I don't blame you - but the whole of this thread is
about a group of people trying to hijack science lessons in order to promote
their own religious ideas.

..and cover them with the same respectability that they think science has..

Thus conversation reminds me of one I had with a Swazi who worked in the
same company I worked in, in Johannesburg..

"Why do the white people all have swimming pools and Mercedes cars?"

"Because they can"

"Well, come the revolution, all the black people will have swimming
pools and Mercedes cars"

"No, they won't. There isn't enough water or money in South Africa for
that to happen"

He didn't have to reply..I knew he was thinking 'white man's lies' as I
spoke...

However, some now do.

This demonstrates that things are not absolutes.




--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:29:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

The point where reason ends and faith begins depends depends, as far
as I am concerned, on the individual and their perspective of what is
reasonable and what is not.


Then you are indeed a total relativist.

I'm not a total anything.


--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:12:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:32:04 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:



In this case, definitely devil's advocate. That is why I have tried
to get across the notion that a view of evolution within a scientific
context (as currently defined) that does not want to allow alternative
views into its space and some of whose adherents are intolerant of
those, has similarity with some of the less attractive facets of
organised religion.

This is not in terms of frames of reference but because of the
exclusive and intolerant aspects of the way that they are presented.

Science should be intolerant. It's a quality assurance scheme.

I don't know if you have ever dealt with QA people in the industrial
sense, but they seem to go on courses on how to delight their
customers.

If you are intolerant, how do you do that?

You can be intolerent with standards yet be tolerant with people.

That's fine as long as you can separate the two.

--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:10:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
How would you deal with the situation where there are a number of
theories within the currently understood realm of science, but where
there is one which you personally believe is *the* one and another you
believe to be crap?

Would you (or even could you) treat them all equally?

When? As a teacher? - it would depend on the age of the pupils. To younger
pupils I would be objective. To sixth formers and above I would lay out the
alternatives and may point out that I favoured one explanation over another.

In any case I would make it clear what answer they need to give in an
examination - and where appropriate that they might gain an extra point for
mentioning the alternative.

To colleagues I might call one crap.

Exactly. This was my point about floating ideas for others to
consider, where I may or may not have my own view, and not introducing
my own position into the discussion.




--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:32:33 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
All that I have done is to question the notion of whether the basis of
science is complete and correct for all time. One can accept that
possibility or not.

Not if you want to move the boundary as far as you indicate.

I haven't indicated how far or when.

Take a look at
the boundaries of Poland throughout the second millennium; you're asking for
far more.

Not relevant.


--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:16:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
All that I have done is to question the
notion of whether the basis of science is complete and correct for all
time. One can accept that possibility or not.


You may think you can.

John and I know that we can't. We actually understand that basis, and
its as immutable as Gods will is claimed to be.

Then you are setting your own limitation.




The effects do not become known unless or until the change is made and
there is no point in doing that for the sake of it.


Well, in that one phrase you have denied the validity of science.

No I have not.



Science is based on the supposition that one CAN know what will happen
when one makes a change, and is dedicated to finding out what that will be.

That's fine, but doesn't address what may happen in the future in
terms of understanding and knowledge.



I accept that most people today would think your statement reasonable,
as most people today think that where probably were WMD in Iraq, or that
Tony Bliar never told porkies.

Not a relevant comparison.


Sadly John and I are traditionalists we do think that its possible to
predict the outcome of changes, and that blind faith and random fiddling
are inferior to actually working things through in an intelligent an
logical manner..

I absolutely agree. However you are neglecting the possibility that
understanding may change in the future and that things that are
regarded as impossible today may become so in the future.






I was looking at this from the opposite direction.

If one says that something has been scrutinised and found wanting, as
was said earlier, then the implication is that either it failed a
known test, that there wasn't a test at all that we know about today,
or that a test that might have been carried out was not permitted
within the current framework of science. There may be others.

What happens if a new test or method is discovered that lends
credibility to a phenomenon that could not be explained or tested
before? Existing branches of science are changed or more are added.


That would be fine if it was not a fundamental test as this particular
hypothesis has failed.

It wasn't that it fell at the third fence, or even the first, it wasn't
that it simply failed to get out of the starting box. It wasn't even
that it wasn't a horse. It turned out not to have legs, or be capable of
running...

Now you want me to presuppose that a legless blob of imagination should
have the rules of horse racing fixed so it has a chance of winning?

I haven't suggested that at all.



Get real...no..its not possible for you to get real

In order to enter a horse race, its necessary to have a horse.

If you cannot agree with that, then there is nothing further to say.

That's obvious and is not my point at all.




We have already talked about things that are at or possibly over the
edges of where science is today. They may later be included or
discounted.


What is over the edge is different from completely outside the
theoretical limits.

We may argue whether a boiler can be made to be 50% 70%, or even 90%
efficient. Once it is stated as 109% efficient, we KNOW that we have
stepped off limits.

This is not comparable to that context.











--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:28:06 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
You're asking to accept any idea as science.

I haven't said that at all.

You have. That's why you need to do some background research.

No I haven't. That was what you chose to deduce from what I said.




--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:30:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
That is not the case. The case is nowhere near where you put t. Stop
trying to be a philosopher - you can't make it. If you want to discuss
further then read up on what is actually happening. Find out what science
is and find out what the creationists are trying to do.

That's a rather patronising reply and is not appropriate in the context of
what was said

'Understand the context' of what you are discussing is not patronising. If you
have a degree in Philosophy then say so and we'll stop trying to simplify our
language - neither of us is very good at that.


You are the one who is suggesting that I am presenting myself as a
philosopher, not me.

To then attempt to criticise me for doing something that I didn't set
out to do is a nonsense.

--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:44:26 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

in 495471 20060131 213529 Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:04:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It would only be a competitor if scrutinised from scientific
perspective. I haven't studied the detail and don't intend to,
because it is its own set of stuff.

It has been scrutinised. It fails every single test. It's not science.


It's not science as you understand it.

This is not to say that I think or don't think that there is or isn't
any validity in ID at all.


It surprises me when on the one hand people accuse the ID protagonists
of dogma; but then say, quite dogmatically that it has been
scrutinised and fails all the tests.

This presupposes that the tests are appropriate and are not extensible
or changeable over time.

I think that that is a big supposition.

The definition of science cannot be whatever you want it to be.

I don't *want* it to be anything. I simply raised the possibility
that it could change in the future. I didn't put what, when or to
what degree in that.



--

..andy

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:01:19 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:13:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Two things here.

Who is to say that the boundaries of what science should or should not
include should remain fixed.

No idea, since no one is saying that at all.

It is a loaded view to say that ideas outside of that are "crackpot".
You may think that and I may think that, but others don't.
Crackpot is pejorative: Let's just say that ideas that fail to meet
Poppers criteria are simply 'not science'


Not science as currently defined.


No. Not science. Period.

Once you throw the absolute criteria that a hypothesis must be
falsifiable out of the window, it ceases to be science.

You keep on dragging out this stale old idea that some sort of new
science based on non scientific principles would be OK.

Sorry, if its based on non scientific principles, it ain't science.

That is not what I said at all.

First of all just because something is or isn't falsifiable or not or
testable or not today, doesn't mean that there is no way that it can
*ever* be.

One may say that the probability is extremely low - to the extent that
for practical purposes it is impossible.




--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I've already said several times that I am not particularly interested
in what the supporters of ID might seek to do.

But you deliberately prepare the ground for them. Why?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:36:14 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I'm simply bringing you back to where I came in and said that all of
the subject matter is, in one way or another, theory.

I then raised the possibility that scientific perspectives could
change in the future.

In the context of bringing ID within science.

No. You put in that context. I certainly did not address my
comments specifically to it or anything else specific.

That's the context of the discussion that you joined. If you are now saying
that you have been discussing something totally different then your words are
doubly without sense.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:30:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
That is not the case. The case is nowhere near where you put it. Stop
trying to be a philosopher - you can't make it. If you want to discuss
further then read up on what is actually happening. Find out what
science is and find out what the creationists are trying to do.

That's a rather patronising reply and is not appropriate in the context
of what was said

'Understand the context' of what you are discussing is not patronising. If
you have a degree in Philosophy then say so and we'll stop trying to
simplify our language - neither of us is very good at that.

You are the one who is suggesting that I am presenting myself as a
philosopher, not me.

To then attempt to criticise me for doing something that I didn't set out
to do is a nonsense.

In that case stop trying to be a philosopher. Do your reading.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:10:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
How would you deal with the situation where there are a number of
theories within the currently understood realm of science, but where
there is one which you personally believe is *the* one and another you
believe to be crap?

Would you (or even could you) treat them all equally?

When? As a teacher? - it would depend on the age of the pupils. To younger
pupils I would be objective. To sixth formers and above I would lay out
the alternatives and may point out that I favoured one explanation over
another.

In any case I would make it clear what answer they need to give in an
examination - and where appropriate that they might gain an extra point
for mentioning the alternative.

To colleagues I might call one crap.

Exactly. This was my point about floating ideas for others to
consider, where I may or may not have my own view, and not introducing my
own position into the discussion.

And the others have told you that you have failed to take critical matters
into account, that you don't know what you are talking about (and you have
admitted that), and the scope of your proposals is eaither larger than you
presupposed (and the whole thing is a nonsense) or is less (and your
intervention in this whole discussion is inappropriate).

Thank you for your diversionary contributions.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
First of all just because something is or isn't falsifiable or not or
testable or not today, doesn't mean that there is no way that it can
*ever* be.

You are failing to understand all this at a very basic level. We're not
suggesting that ID isn't falsifiable because we haven't come up with a
clever-enough test. ID doesn't come up with a prediction that could be tested.
Ever.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andy Hall wrote:

Yet you say that it is not possible for the definition and boundaries
of science ever to change (if I have understood you correctly - please
correct that if not).

No, because there are boundaries and boundaries.

You can change the boundaries of a field. It might even include a
stream, or a quarry, and still be a field..but if you extend its
boundaries to the constellation Andromeda, it is no longer reasonable to
talk about it as a 'field' because that has the implications of a place
where e.g. crops are grown, or animals graze.

This is the point you steadfastly refuse to accept: To change the
'boundaries of science' to include creationism and ID is to turn it into
something that is no longer science..it is simply not POSSIBLE to teach
ID or creationism as science, because it simply _isn't_ science.

John and I have patiently explained why this is so, of the exact
criteria that demarcate a scientific theory from a crackpot one.

Of course nothing prevents you or any other creationist from gaining
control of the educational establishment, declaring that creationism is
science, but as I have pointed out to you several times, that is just
Bandar Log speak..Its Orwell's 'Ministry of Love' all over again.


I can't be responsible for your inability to see what is patently clear.
A cat is a cat because it has a catlike boundary. Science is science
because it has scientific boundaries.
Why, of all the places to discuss creationism, do the creationists pick
science? Because it is the one place that has the respectability they
crave.

Why does it have that respectability? Because it is a diligent, very
throughly tested and very widely applicable area of human thought and
knowledge.

Which creationism simply is not.

Its a blatant and direct attack on the most hallowed of human
institutions: Rational thought. By those who hold it as essentially the
work of the devil.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:34:32 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:04:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It would only be a competitor if scrutinised from scientific
perspective. I haven't studied the detail and don't intend to,
because it is its own set of stuff.
It has been scrutinised. It fails every single test. It's not science.
It's not science as you understand it.
It's not science. Take away observation, discussion, experimentation,
prediction, and changing ideas in the light of experimental results and what
you are left with cannot possibly be science. That's what you are defending -
science being still science once you have removed eerything that makes it
science.

This is not to say that I think or don't think that there is or isn't
any validity in ID at all.
And there is just as much (ie none) validity in your argument.

It surprises me when on the one hand people accuse the ID protagonists
of dogma; but then say, quite dogmatically that it has been
scrutinised and fails all the tests.
This presupposes that the tests are appropriate and are not extensible
or changeable over time.
I think that that is a big supposition.
Crap. We are not talking about the tests being appropriate; we are talking
about removing them altogether.

You're talking about removing them altogether, I'm not.


You are.
If you feel that perhaps at some future date ID and creationism be
considered 'scientific'

Which point you have been belaboring all along.

If you haven't appreciated that there is a
slight difference there then you are failing to learn anything.

I have not said that there wasn't a difference - obviously there is.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:08:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I think that it is possible that today's definitions for requirements
for scientific theories could change in the future, simply because I
would not want to take the position that it could never happen.
Whether I think that it *will* happen or *should* happen is quite
another matter.
Well you are intrinsically wrong. Squares will never become circles, no
matter how much you pretend they are.


The analogy that you have made is intrinsically wrong because it is
too simplistic

So is what I am referring to, you just choose not to look at it in that way.

Science that included theories like intelligent design, or creationism,
simply is no longer science, in the same way that a circle with vertices
on it, is no longer a circle.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:13:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:43:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, if an individual considers the issues and takes a position
for himself, then I think that that is quite a different matter.
You're weaseling out. I don't blame you - but the whole of this thread is
about a group of people trying to hijack science lessons in order to promote
their own religious ideas.

I'm not weaseling out at all.


I'm simply bringing you back to where I came in and said that all of
the subject matter is, in one way or another, theory.
but at lest the theories are scientific, and tested, and not found wanting

Within the scope of science as it is today.

No, ever.


Whereas the theories you would have us countenance, are unscientific,
untestable, and therefore worthless. In science.

They are untestable at the current state of our knowledge

No, intrinsically untestable.
Untestable and unfalsifiable is a logical thing, not relative to knowledge.

Defining the cause of everything as an undefinable, is simply a logical
fallacy. An empty statement.

Unless you throw logic away, it can never have any logical inference
drawn from it.




I then raised the possibility that scientific perspectives could
change in the future.

But they can't. Not on the matter as to what constitutes a scientific
theory. Not in the way you mean anyway. Its not an issue of dogma, its
an issue of impossibility.


Based on our understanding today.

Based on the way logic works.

You are simply in the end saying that there is nothing anywhere that has
substance or meaning or existence outside of our capacity to conjecture
its existence. Its all in our minds.

If you want to believe that, be my guest, but it leads rapidly to a
worldview in which nothing can ever be attempted whatsoever.

I wouldn't care about your delusions, except they are socially dangerous.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:10:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Do you think that science isn't open to being challenged in terms of
the boundaries as well as the detail?
Yes. Its not open to being challenged on the boundaries..except possibly
by the very best thinkers and philosophers we have.

I didn't say who should do this any more than I said when and to what
degree or on what basis - only that I was not going to exclude the
possibility


And you aren't one, for sure, and nether are the god botherers.


I have simply floated the
thought that perhaps its scope could change in the future. I haven't
said when or by how much. I would hardly describe it as an attack.

Nor was the war on terror a war really..but lots of people died.

This is a meaningless comparison

As are the majority of your statements..

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:05:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, if an individual considers the issues and takes a position
for himself, then I think that that is quite a different matter.
You're weaseling out. I don't blame you - but the whole of this thread is
about a group of people trying to hijack science lessons in order to promote
their own religious ideas.

..and cover them with the same respectability that they think science has..

Thus conversation reminds me of one I had with a Swazi who worked in the
same company I worked in, in Johannesburg..

"Why do the white people all have swimming pools and Mercedes cars?"

"Because they can"

"Well, come the revolution, all the black people will have swimming
pools and Mercedes cars"

"No, they won't. There isn't enough water or money in South Africa for
that to happen"

He didn't have to reply..I knew he was thinking 'white man's lies' as I
spoke...

However, some now do.

This demonstrates that things are not absolutes.


Some is not all. And that was the point of the anecdote.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:29:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

The point where reason ends and faith begins depends depends, as far
as I am concerned, on the individual and their perspective of what is
reasonable and what is not.

Then you are indeed a total relativist.

I'm not a total anything.


Hmm. Not even a total human being by the sounds of it.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:16:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
All that I have done is to question the
notion of whether the basis of science is complete and correct for all
time. One can accept that possibility or not.

You may think you can.

John and I know that we can't. We actually understand that basis, and
its as immutable as Gods will is claimed to be.

Then you are setting your own limitation.



If only...thats where you are mired. YOU think that like the Bandar log
if enough people think it, it must be true.

I just wish enough people who think like that would think that they
could walk on water, and make the attempt. Preferably somewhere deep.

I didn't design the universe..it has rules that I am subject to.

Round where I come from people who seek to understand those limits and
rules are called wise, people who think they can make the rules up to
suit themselves, and that limitations are an invention of the human
mind, usually end up dead fairly quickly.

Science is ultimately a practical exercise, one is limited not by some
dogmatic adherence to the creed in some dusty book, but by what works,
and produces results. There is little enough that does, without
introducing stuff that patently doesn't and can be fairly quickly proved
in a time indeterminate fashion, CAN never work or produce results.

The only dogma a true scientist has, is that he takes the world as he
finds it. He trusts in the world, and evidence of it gained via his sense.

His discipline is to organize his experiences into meaningful practical
and utile categories.

If he breaks that discipline, and ceases to apply only those categories
that are supported by experience, and are meaningful and utile, he
ceases to be doing science.

This whole thread has been about the implications of doing just that,
and we are perfectly clear on that point.

You insistence is that its possible at some future date that science
could be extended to include any theory that strikes our fancy.
Irrespective of its relation to the world of experience, utility, or
practical value. I say at that point it is not science.

You cannot have it both ways. Science is a particular thing. To make it
include other things, is to change its definition. Change its definition
far enough and it ceases to be science.
A square is not a circle, and n amount of human knowledge and
understanding will ever make it so. The definitions are not time
variant, and the definitions are mutually exclusive.



To manage to get science and religion in the same box, requires you
break one or both of them.

The only difference is that religion claims that it is the box to end
all boxes, which science never can do..and that is the problem. Science
is content to be a subject among subjects. Religion is not.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:28:06 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
You're asking to accept any idea as science.
I haven't said that at all.
You have. That's why you need to do some background research.

No I haven't. That was what you chose to deduce from what I said.


Yes you have, it was implicit in your statements.
No deduction was required.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:01:19 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:13:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
Two things here.

Who is to say that the boundaries of what science should or should not
include should remain fixed.

No idea, since no one is saying that at all.

It is a loaded view to say that ideas outside of that are "crackpot".
You may think that and I may think that, but others don't.
Crackpot is pejorative: Let's just say that ideas that fail to meet
Poppers criteria are simply 'not science'

Not science as currently defined.

No. Not science. Period.

Once you throw the absolute criteria that a hypothesis must be
falsifiable out of the window, it ceases to be science.

You keep on dragging out this stale old idea that some sort of new
science based on non scientific principles would be OK.

Sorry, if its based on non scientific principles, it ain't science.

That is not what I said at all.

First of all just because something is or isn't falsifiable or not or
testable or not today, doesn't mean that there is no way that it can
*ever* be.

No, there are classes of statements that are time invariant.

That can never be proved false.

"There were WMD in Iraq"

Is one such. Failure to find them, does not ever prove that they were
not there. Not now, not ever.

"There exist Unicorns" is another. Failure to ever find one, does not
prove that they are not there. They might have properties that prevent
them ever BEING found, yet still exist. They might always be SOMEWHERE
ELSE when you go looking..

"God exists" is another one. Its so general, that its meaningless. It
can never be proved false, because we have no idea of what we are
looking for.

Creationism is another one.

"God made the world in 6 days" "The world is 5000 years old"
Since no one was there to make a video, its hard to disprove it.

All we can say is that if we assume the laws of nature have not varied
over time, a combination of things - for example - leads us to the
tentative conclusion that the world was probably made in about 10-67
seconds..about 13.7 billion years ago.

Now we are clear about the assumptions here..that the laws of nature
have to remain constant over that period.

If the laws themselves, and everything else, were replicated to simulate
EXACTLY what science predicts would have been its condition 5000 years
ago, then yes, God COULD have made it all 5000 years ago. But
essentially it makes NO DIFFERENCE to science. The two explanations are
functionally equivalent, and the big bang is far far simpler..so Occam's
razor is used to throw out creationism as being really far too complex
to be of any practical USE.

This is the point that you time and again fail to grasp. If Unicorns or
no unicorns makes no difference, science doesn't say 'there are NO
unicorns' it simply says 'considering whether there are or not gets us
precisely nowhere, and muddies the waters by introducing unnecessary
entities that do not assist us to investigate the Universe'.


One may say that the probability is extremely low - to the extent that
for practical purposes it is impossible.



No. We are not talking about things that are subject to what data we may
or may not have in the future. Like actually finding a unicorn.

We are talking about a class of postulates that can never ever be
falsified, because the lack of falsifiability is inherent in the
definition of them.

God is one such postulate, by including power of infinite dimension to
Him, and making him subject to no rules except His own, any time we fail
to find evidence for him can simply be explained as his desire to remain
hidden.

Its a catch 22. Believe in god and the evidence for Him is all around,
fail to believe, and you find none.

I will leave you to ponder on that one.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Hall
saying something like:

Why what? Is 'why' an appropriate question in this context?

I think that "Why" is the most important question of all.

"How" is really easy in comparison. If we are on a voyage of
scientific discovery (which we should be), then "why" should not be
precluded.

'Why' implies a reason. In my book the reason is simply the blind
processes of Nature. For others, the reason is some Deity in the clouds
or hovering around somewhere. That's why it's so hard for the
bible-thumpers to get their heads around evolution. (The idea that
there's something/somebody up there is a comforting one to them, I grant
you, but basically it's an undiagnosed mental illness, mostly mild, but
sometimes scary in its effects.)

Purely objectively, stripped of any emotional baggage, evolution makes
much more sense than any other explanation.

Ruthless Nature, iow. The Universe doesn't care about you or me or this
planet/solar system, etc. It just carries on doing what it's been doing
for the past however many billion years.

In cosmic terms, we are nothing. This planet is nothing. This corner of
the galaxy is nothing. We have to just accept it and get on with our
lives. It's not so hard, really.

Last time I looked there were no fairies at the bottom of my garden -
which is a bit of a bugger, for a pot of gold would be really handy
right now.
--

Dave

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

That's up to you. I don't limit myself to your definitions.

Or reality. ;-(


It ain't that funny. Implicitly that is precisely what Andy does.

Ignore reality when formulating theories about theories.

What he will not accept, however, is that that is a subject called
metaphysics, not science.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
First of all just because something is or isn't falsifiable or not or
testable or not today, doesn't mean that there is no way that it can
*ever* be.

You are failing to understand all this at a very basic level. We're not
suggesting that ID isn't falsifiable because we haven't come up with a
clever-enough test. ID doesn't come up with a prediction that could be tested.
Ever.

Ah, but it might do one day

Actually it DID come up with one: That there would be structures in
nature that would be too complex to have evolved stepwise. It was
refuted withing a few months.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
[snip]
I'm questioning the assertion that these should be a fixed thing and
preclude other ideas from being discussed and considered according to
a number of different frameworks.



well the answer is yes, certain things are fixed. And keeping science
scientific is one of them. And they should be fixed,
[snip]

Mmmm... normally when one hears a plea for anything to be fixed in this
context, it is the religious types who are uttering it.

I must say that I never thought that this sense of "fixed" would come up
in this n.g.

Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
[snip]
I'm questioning the assertion that these should be a fixed thing and
preclude other ideas from being discussed and considered according to
a number of different frameworks.


well the answer is yes, certain things are fixed. And keeping science
scientific is one of them. And they should be fixed,
[snip]

Mmmm... normally when one hears a plea for anything to be fixed in this
context, it is the religious types who are uttering it.

I must say that I never thought that this sense of "fixed" would come up
in this n.g.


Well fixed in the sense that 'adherence to the laws of logic, and
practicality' is fixed..

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Tournifreak"
saying something like:

What religion would you teach your children then? Secular humanism?
Atheism? Universalism? Your worldview (like it or not) is your
religion.

Not so.

You might not believe in a god, but you still believe in a
set of principles that govern the way you lead your life.

True, but that is *not* a religion.
--

Dave

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I can also understand the point that theories without evidence and
explanation not be accepted. However, that is from the perspective
of, and with the qualifier that the evidence and explanation is scoped
by current scientific understanding.

I don't believe that that has to remain fixed for all time.


Well thats because you are embroiled in belief.

Where you get that from, I have no idea.



Let me demonstrate ONE last time a hypothesis that can NEVER be
scientific, no matter HOW much the scope of science changes.


There exists an entity, whose effect on any thing you can ever detect is
immeasurable, such that this entity - although the cause of everything -
can never ever be detected actually doing anything that could not be
explained in some alternative way.


When framed in the way that you have here, of course I have to agree
and willingly do so.

However, that is to suggest that such an entity *could* never be
detected in a measurable way. I am not so bold as to think that
that is an abolute certainty.




Therefore I am uncomfortable with the idea of explicitly excluding
theories, even if one finds them lacking in evidence (on one's own
principles) or distasteful.


Once again, its not the lack of evidence, its the impossibility of
falsification, that marks the theory out as unscientific. Its a logical,
not a data, flaw.

What happens when there are competing theories within the realms of
science as currently understood?




Have you heard the one about the man in the train, tearing up
newspapers and throwing them out of the window?

When asked why he was doing this, he said 'it keeps the unicorns away'

On being informed that there were no such things as unicorns, he replied
'I know, its incredibly effective isn't it?'





Now I know you have trouble thinking logically, but please try and see
the point here.

I have no difficulty at all. I am simply not excluding
possibilities, however small the probability.





Science cannot be in the business of speculation about things it can
logically never ever have any chance of disproving. It has enough
trouble with things it can disprove.

This makes the assumption that there will never be any means to prove
or disprove.



--

..andy