How can you tell the difference between things that were designed and those that evolved using some kind of evolutionary process?
Exactly. There is no way to tell the difference. That makes the idea unfalsifable (unable to be disproven). Because it is impossible to even test the idea, it is completely unscientific. That doesn't mean false, just outside the boundry of scientific inquiry. Given two possible explainations that are completely indistinguishable, one that requires a supernatural designer for which there is no evidence whatsoever and another explaination that does not, Occam's razor clearly favors the simpler explaination.
Call it religion, call it philosophy, just don't pretend that it is science.
I may be misinformed, but I had not heard about any testable predictions from either theories. Do you have any examples? Both fields have the potential to become theories, but aren't there yet until they produce testable predictions.
As for your question: tell me what you mean by "supernatural". (I assume you are interested only in the hard physical sciences. Get over into the social sciences, and psychology, etc., and "incorporating" the "supernatural" is not uncommon.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "complete scientific theories".
Basically a scientific theory makes testable predictions.
Do not be confused by the fact that "brane theory" and "string theory" both have the word "theory" in them, neither one meets this criteria yet (but either or both may in the future).
But back to the point about the difference between science and religion, can you give one example of a theory that incorporates the supernatural and meets this criteria?
Or other universes. Or the "bulk" (a sort of space outside "spacetime" as we "know" it? Or the origin of life (not to be confused with "origin of species", which Darwin theorized was how that original life form(s) became as varied and complex and interdependent as it is today)? Or do you think we (in this millenia) have any way of actually seeing, measuring, or studying, wormholes or the "other dimensions" inside the "strings" (our best "scientific" theory of everything)?
None of these things you mentioned are complete scientific theories. Most are at best philosophy, at worst pure speculation. Some of them may eventually become theories, once they meet the five basic properties of a proper scientific theory: predictive, logical, testable, falsifable, provable.
You are correct that the examples you mentioned are no better than supernatural explanations, that is why they are not actually scientific theories in their current form.
Few people claim that science is the "sole way of arriving at the truth". The strongest proponents of science only claim that it is the best way that human have developed so far, as evidenced as the amount of knowledge discovered by science vs. the amount discovered by other methods.
You are correct that the definition of "science" that requires such attributes as predictive, logical, testable, falsifable and provable is both "Arbitrary and subjective". The problem is that multiple definitions of the word "science" are being used. When proponents of ID use the word "science", they are referring to a different process than the one described by the previous attributes.
The purpose of language is dilluted when multiple concepets are described by the same word because of the danger of confusing the two concepts.
Personally, I don't care what definition you use for the word "science", just don't try to tell me that the concept your definition of the word "science" describes is the same concept that I am talking about when I talk about a process definied by the five aforementioned attributes.
Nothing is "wrong" with this arguement. The argmuement is falls outside the boundries of science (unscientific), however, because the exist of supernatural entities us unfalsifable.
The possibility of gods existing is not concidered by science since the question is one of religeon or philosohpy, not science.
You are missing the point. I did not claim that this story proved anything. My supernova example was to demonstrate that a theory can be proved my other methods than being "physically manipulated and observed and tested"
My point was not that the experiment was conclusive, just that it is possible to perform experiments in the first place. This makes the theory provable.
You are assuming that protiens in their modern form formed directly from organic molocules. Every theory of biogensis I've ever heard of assumes that the original forms of life were vastly simpler than modern forms and evolve later into more complex forms.
If the theory is correct we will expect to find more examples of solar systems and planets that show the characteristics predicted by the theory as our ability to make these observations improves.
In any case, it is only a matter of waiting for the results.
If it can't be physically manipulated and observed and tested... it can't be proven.
If you observe the process occuring it is a way of proving it. Just like we can prove that supernovas happen by observing one happen even if we can't induce a supernova in a labratory.
I would say dfficult to prove, not aren't even remotely provable. Labratory experiments can be and have been performed to demonstrate the possibility of certain organic molocules in the conditions believed to exist early in the life of the planet.
As far as observing this process in actions, it is only a matter of finding planets at the various stages of the process and observing the expected chemical reactions. This will be easier as our ability to make the observations improves.
In fact we are performing these observations on the past, due to the speed of light. However many light-years away the observed solar system is, that is how long ago the events we see now happened.
I think what they are claiming support for is the the theory that organic molocules form before planets. Since this is an example of a solar system with organic molocules and no planets...
Slashdot Mirror
I though this post looked familiar.
So if this post is a troll, does the addition of a paragraph to an otherwise identical post make this one not a troll?
Exactly. There is no way to tell the difference. That makes the idea unfalsifable (unable to be disproven). Because it is impossible to even test the idea, it is completely unscientific. That doesn't mean false, just outside the boundry of scientific inquiry. Given two possible explainations that are completely indistinguishable, one that requires a supernatural designer for which there is no evidence whatsoever and another explaination that does not, Occam's razor clearly favors the simpler explaination.
Call it religion, call it philosophy, just don't pretend that it is science.
Sure
Basically a scientific theory makes testable predictions.
Do not be confused by the fact that "brane theory" and "string theory" both have the word "theory" in them, neither one meets this criteria yet (but either or both may in the future).
But back to the point about the difference between science and religion, can you give one example of a theory that incorporates the supernatural and meets this criteria?
Do we have any sort of chance of observing the "Big Bang"?
No, but we observe the effects of it.
Or other universes. Or the "bulk" (a sort of space outside "spacetime" as we "know" it? Or the origin of life (not to be confused with "origin of species", which Darwin theorized was how that original life form(s) became as varied and complex and interdependent as it is today)? Or do you think we (in this millenia) have any way of actually seeing, measuring, or studying, wormholes or the "other dimensions" inside the "strings" (our best "scientific" theory of everything)?
None of these things you mentioned are complete scientific theories. Most are at best philosophy, at worst pure speculation. Some of them may eventually become theories, once they meet the five basic properties of a proper scientific theory: predictive, logical, testable, falsifable, provable.
You are correct that the examples you mentioned are no better than supernatural explanations, that is why they are not actually scientific theories in their current form.
What exactly is your definition of the word random?
The premise that random mutation happens is neither testable or falsifiable
Are you trying to say that inheritable random mutations of DNA do not occur? I would beg to differ with that statement.
Few people claim that science is the "sole way of arriving at the truth". The strongest proponents of science only claim that it is the best way that human have developed so far, as evidenced as the amount of knowledge discovered by science vs. the amount discovered by other methods.
In this context:
predictable is a result that could be predicted
predictive is a theory that makes predictions
One is a characteristic of a result, the other is a characteristic of a theory.
Arbitrary and subjective rules... like math?
You are correct that the definition of "science" that requires such attributes as predictive, logical, testable, falsifable and provable is both "Arbitrary and subjective". The problem is that multiple definitions of the word "science" are being used. When proponents of ID use the word "science", they are referring to a different process than the one described by the previous attributes.
The purpose of language is dilluted when multiple concepets are described by the same word because of the danger of confusing the two concepts.
Personally, I don't care what definition you use for the word "science", just don't try to tell me that the concept your definition of the word "science" describes is the same concept that I am talking about when I talk about a process definied by the five aforementioned attributes.
I think you mean predictive, not predictable.
Nothing is "wrong" with this arguement. The argmuement is falls outside the boundries of science (unscientific), however, because the exist of supernatural entities us unfalsifable.
The possibility of gods existing is not concidered by science since the question is one of religeon or philosohpy, not science.
I think the amount of rational debate will reduce signifigantly once the next story (in the Mysterious Future) goes live...
You are missing the point. I did not claim that this story proved anything. My supernova example was to demonstrate that a theory can be proved my other methods than being "physically manipulated and observed and tested"
Who's to say that in the future it will always be impossible for us to figure out what was before the Big Bang?
Not to mention the possibility that the question itself has no meaning (that there is no such things as "before the big bang")
My point was not that the experiment was conclusive, just that it is possible to perform experiments in the first place. This makes the theory provable.
I agree that the theory remains unproven.
You are assuming that protiens in their modern form formed directly from organic molocules. Every theory of biogensis I've ever heard of assumes that the original forms of life were vastly simpler than modern forms and evolve later into more complex forms.
If the theory is correct we will expect to find more examples of solar systems and planets that show the characteristics predicted by the theory as our ability to make these observations improves.
In any case, it is only a matter of waiting for the results.
If it can't be physically manipulated and observed and tested... it can't be proven.
If you observe the process occuring it is a way of proving it. Just like we can prove that supernovas happen by observing one happen even if we can't induce a supernova in a labratory.
Carbon dating measures the ratios of various carbon isotopes (C-12 and C-14 I believe), not the age of individual carbon atoms.
I would say dfficult to prove, not aren't even remotely provable. Labratory experiments can be and have been performed to demonstrate the possibility of certain organic molocules in the conditions believed to exist early in the life of the planet.
As far as observing this process in actions, it is only a matter of finding planets at the various stages of the process and observing the expected chemical reactions. This will be easier as our ability to make the observations improves.
In fact we are performing these observations on the past, due to the speed of light. However many light-years away the observed solar system is, that is how long ago the events we see now happened.
I think what they are claiming support for is the the theory that organic molocules form before planets. Since this is an example of a solar system with organic molocules and no planets...
I think that's why they say that the discovery supports the theory instead of saying that the discovery proves the theory.
The solar system in question has no planets yet.
Rosetta Stone has seperate Spain Spainish and Latin American Spanish courses.