Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[porchrat]

The only sheep punting ID are creationists. Thus the agenda.

But I digress. It's a duck!

It could be a bit of wood...

 

[Techne]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

Does SETI teach a "controversy"?
Does SETI have a hidden agenda?
Did the courts rule that SETI is not science like they did ID?

None of this all of a sudden implies SETI is science. Still looking for something that can explain why SETI is supposed to be science and ID not.

ID makes claims that's not backed by Science, Seti doesn't do this. Seti is an on going process to search for Alien life through the Scientific method. ID is an on going process to substantiate ones beliefs by any means possible.

Well, how is SETI's methods scientific and ID not? What is the big difference? Both are looking for signs of intelligence being the source of something they are measuring without any evidence of the intelligence itself.

At some point both will make the claim "X is probably the result of an intelligent source" without any evidence of the actual source.

Exactly, they aren't looking at the stars and concluding that aliens did it.

At some point if SETI is to have ANY success they will have to say this so...

As far as I was aware SETI was looking for electromagnetic communications. Based on our own communication formats they form standards for what they think communications from intelligent life could look like (things like repetition). Am I wrong? Heck if they aren't doing this they are a waste of money and might as well pack up and go home.

How do they objectively measure whether something is the result of an intelligent source or not? Looks like subjective pseudoscience or "hey, it looks like it has an intelligent source but I can't scientifically verify it".

I don't remember ID ever having anything even approaching this because they don't really have any organisms we have built from scratch to use as a comparison. Every discipline you have mentioned before has some sort of comparison they make for the purposes of identification. I'm not aware of anything like that in ID.

As far as I understand, IDers argue that certain information is the result of some kind of intelligence. For example codes, machines etc. So that might as well count as their standard. So they then search for similar kinds of things in other structures. Nothing objective. It would appear much like SETI's subjective inferences.

So both ID and SETI seem to infer an intelligent source based on "it looks like it was designed but we can't verify it scientifically". People of course would like to believe the one is science and the other is not.

 

[porchrat]

How do they objectively measure whether something is the result of an intelligent source or not? Looks like subjective pseudoscience or "hey, it looks like it has an intelligent source but I can't scientifically verify it".


As far as I understand, IDers argue that certain information is the result of some kind of intelligence. For example codes, machines etc. So that might as well count as their standard. So they then search for similar kinds of things in other structures. Nothing objective. It would appear much like SETI's subjective inferences.

So both ID and SETI seem to infer an intelligent source based on "it looks like it was designed but we can't verify it scientifically". People of course would like to believe the one is science and the other is not.

Frankly I couldn't give a schit about SETI but you have made a good point. Both are just making assumptions. Sure SETI has human communications that they base their assumptions on but ultimately they are assumptions. The most obvious assumption of course being that intelligent life out there is going to be using radio.

Still I can't help but think that SETI are using our communications formats as a basis and looking for something out there that looks the same or similar. That of course doesn't mean that if they find nothing that matches that there is nothing out there or if they find something that it necessarily constitutes anything more than a point to concentrate our efforts in the future onto but that alone is more than IDers have. IDers attempt to use codes and machinery and equate those to biological organisms which is totally potty.

Does that necessarily justify the SETI investigation? I don't know like I said I don't really care about SETI.

 

[Unhappy438]

None of this all of a sudden implies SETI is science. Still looking for something that can explain why SETI is supposed to be science and ID not.

Well, how is SETI's methods scientific and ID not? What is the big difference? Both are looking for signs of intelligence being the source of something they are measuring without any evidence of the intelligence itself.

At some point both will make the claim "X is probably the result of an intelligent source" without any evidence of the actual source.

I jus fsking told you by the claims that ID makes, ID makes claims that are counter to Science. Here is the list of them http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . Now please supply me a list like this of claims that SETI make that are counter to Science. SETI are currently performing an experiment under the Scientific methods. Yes they are yet to produce a result from this experiment, actually many Scientific experiments dont produce results ever but that doesnt mean they are disqualified from being Scientific. Sometimes finding out we are wrong about something is just as good as finding out we are right.

I must say this is a fsking pathetic argument for the acceptance of ID being Scientific.

 

[Unhappy438]

Frankly I couldn't give a schit about SETI but you have made a good point. Both are just making assumptions.

Question is a better word though rather than assumption, SETI is posing the question. Does intelligent life use radio.

 

[porchrat]

Dont almost all Science investigations start on an assumption? Its the way you investigate those assumptions that dictate if you are Scientific or not?

As your picture demonstrates they normally come from a hypothesis of some sort which in turn has stemmed from questions arising from a researcher's intricate understanding of the domains his/her research relates to... not blind assumptions.

Wikipedia has a pretty good line on assumptions:

In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts

That is not really science.

 

[DJ...]

SETI and ID are similar. Both are looking for something incredible that we have no evidence of; both are yet to prove anything whatsoever. The difference here is that SETI readily admit that there is a possibility that extra terrestrial life doesn't exist. Although they'd be miffed it was proven untrue, they wouldn't deny all evidence to the contrary should it be scientifically proven. ID on the other hand would just shift the goal posts. The other difference here is that we have an understanding of evolution which perfectly explains our observations. If we were to imagine a similar scenario with SETI, that would be like starting SETI to explain a weird alien looking animal. Then finding out the animal is just an octopus, but continuing to research it to try to prove it isn't an octopus.

Okay, I'm tired, but that's the first example that came to mind...

 

[Unhappy438]

As your picture demonstrates they normally come from a hypothesis of some sort which in turn has stemmed from questions arising from a researcher's intricate understanding of the domains his/her research relates to... not blind assumptions.

Wikipedia has a pretty good line on assumptions:


That is not really science.

Sorry , i was still busy editing my post and my internet was very slow. I didn't use the correct words , relook at what i have to say

 

[porchrat]

Sorry , i was still busy editing my post and my internet was very slow. I didn't use the correct words , relook at what i have to say

Ah cool. I will quote your updated post here and respond. Hopefully this isn't too confusing

Question is a better word though rather than assumption, SETI is posing the question. Does intelligent life use radio.

The problem with the SETI investigation is that it won't necessarily answer that question. For example just because they don't discover something doesn't mean aliens don't use radio, they could be using radio in a way that we fail to pick up on.

The only way SETI could say anything about a hypothesis involving ET and radio is if they intercept a communication and decode it. Any other outcome will result in them not having an answer. Honestly I just don't have enough experience with scientific investigations to know whether or not this constitutes good science but it doesn't seem like it does.

I do think however that it constitutes more than ID does because IMO ID can't reach a conclusion about the design of organisms no matter what they do.

 

[CoolBug]

Can't believe I have to spell this out.

ID is pretending to be science and are using dishonest, dangerous ways to get there creationist stories into public schools instead of evolution.

SETI at least uses an honest approach, use scientific methods and are actual scientists that have done actual work for NASA

 

[Unhappy438]

The problem with the SETI investigation is that it won't necessarily answer that question. For example just because they don't discover something doesn't mean aliens don't use radio, they could be using radio in a way that we fail to pick up on.

Then we would have learnt something don't you think? So the investigation wouldn't be completely useless.

The only way SETI could say anything about a hypothesis involving ET and radio is if they intercept a communication and decode it. Any other outcome will result in them not having an answer. Honestly I just don't have enough experience with scientific investigations to know whether or not this constitutes good science but it doesn't seem like it does.

So if intercepting and decoding communication is a possible outcome we should then atleast try right? If this outcome becomes true then its good science.

I personally believe SETI isnt the best type of investigation for ET , however that was never the issue. Techne reckons if SETI is Science then so is ID which if you ask me is bullschit.

 

[Techne]

I jus fsking told you by the claims that ID makes, ID makes claims that are counter to Science. Here is the list of them http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . Now please supply me a list like this of claims that SETI make that are counter to Science. SETI are currently performing an experiment under the Scientific methods. Yes they are yet to produce a result from this experiment, actually many Scientific experiments dont produce results ever but that doesnt mean they are disqualified from being Scientific. Sometimes finding out we are wrong about something is just as good as finding out we are right.

I must say this is a fsking pathetic argument for the acceptance of ID being Scientific.

I personally believe SETI isnt the best type of investigation for ET , however that was never the issue. Techne reckons if SETI is Science then so is ID which if you ask me is bullschit.

I think you got it exactly wrong. I don't think ID is an empirical science. However, the arguments against ID not being science can in a similar fashion be used against SETI. I.e. I doubt SETI qualifies as a science for similar reasons ID does not.

I am still looking for an argument why SETI can be considered an empirical science.

 

[DJ...]

I am still looking for an argument why SETI can be considered an empirical science.

They use empirical science which can be replicated, with an end-goal that is completely scientific. Everything about their research is scientific.
ID on the other hand cannot use science, as there is no concept of a god within which to even begin to measure or test for scientifically.

 

[DJ...]

I think you got it exactly wrong. I don't think ID is an empirical science.

So how does one test for a common designer? Even if we find a common aspect that resembles a design, it still doesn't prove a god. It simply means that we do not understand what is going on and need to study it in further depth. Problem with ID is it requires a scientific basis for god, to already be understood, so that one knows what to test for.

ID is no empirical science...

 

[Techne]

They use empirical science which can be replicated, with an end-goal that is completely scientific. Everything about their research is scientific.
ID on the other hand cannot use science, as there is no concept of a god within which to even begin to measure or test for scientifically.

Could you perhaps point to their methodology which you claim to be scientific?
Also, as mentioned MANY times ID can in principle NOT be used to support theism. At best it can get to some sort of intelligence that designs some biological material.

 

[Techne]

So how does one test for a common designer? Even if we find a common aspect that resembles a design, it still doesn't prove a god. It simply means that we do not understand what is going on and need to study it in further depth. Problem with ID is it requires a scientific basis for god, to already be understood, so that one knows what to test for.

ID is no empirical science...

Did you even read what I said? :erm: Weird...

 

[Unhappy438]

I think you got it exactly wrong. I don't think ID is an empirical science. However, the arguments against ID not being science can in a similar fashion be used against SETI. I.e. I doubt SETI qualifies as a science for similar reasons ID does not.

I am still looking for an argument why SETI can be considered an empirical science.

Seriously , comprehension problems. This is my arguments as to why ID isn't Science.

I jus fsking told you by the claims that ID makes, ID makes claims that are counter to Science. Here is the list of them http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . Now please supply me a list like this of claims that SETI make that are counter to Science. SETI are currently performing an experiment under the Scientific methods. Yes they are yet to produce a result from this experiment, actually many Scientific experiments dont produce results ever but that doesnt mean they are disqualified from being Scientific. Sometimes finding out we are wrong about something is just as good as finding out we are right.

Now please kindly post that list for SETI to disqualify them as Science like ID.

 

[Techne]

Seriously , comprehension problems. This is my arguments as to why ID isn't Science.

Now please kindly post that list for SETI to disqualify them as Science like ID.

I am looking for something that makes SETI an example of good empirical science. The "hey, it looks like it has an intelligent source but I can't scientifically verify it" or the "hey, ID isn't science" aren't argument for SETI being an empirical science.

 

[buyeye]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_in_the_Cell

 

[CoolBug]

I am looking for something that makes SETI an example of good empirical science. The "hey, it looks like it has an intelligent source but I can't scientifically verify it" or the "hey, ID isn't science" aren't argument for SETI being an empirical science.

They are making assumptions and doing as much testing as technologically possible.

What is ID doing to test it's assumptions?

I would like to know what "testing" ID does?

Maybe SETI is not an actual science like forensics but they are using (not abusing) science as much as they can and scientific organisations and educational institutions support them, not to mention one of the Astronomical heros of science.

Now, please can you show me the scientific organisation and educational institutions that support ID?

An example of how their ridiculous claims apparently how they use scientific method, SETI does not do this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Positive_Case_for_Design