Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Is ID science?

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:20:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Put this is in philosophy since it is obviously a question in the domain of philosophy of science.

"The denier that ID [intelligent design] is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken."

-- Thomas Nagel

Thoughts?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:45:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:30:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
By that logic, astrology is science.

If you are trying to go down the "pseudoscience" route, good luck with trying to solve the demarcation problem.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:46:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:45:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/25/2014 9:30:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
By that logic, astrology is science.

If you are trying to go down the "pseudoscience" route, good luck with trying to solve the demarcation problem.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I'm an advocate of ID btw.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:47:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:20:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Put this is in philosophy since it is obviously a question in the domain of philosophy of science.

"The denier that ID [intelligent design] is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken."

-- Thomas Nagel

Thoughts?

One of the main distinctions that makes something science is that it is empirically testable and provides a model with explanatory power.

As somebody who had heavily criticised ID, I would say that ID could only be classified as science on the very loosest of descriptions, much looser than what string theory and other barely testable cosmological/universe models would fit into.

It is... in principle testable, but not in practice, especially in the manner in which most ID proponents present their ideas anyway.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 11:17:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:20:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Put this is in philosophy since it is obviously a question in the domain of philosophy of science.

"The denier that ID [intelligent design] is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken."

-- Thomas Nagel

Thoughts?

The problem, of course, is that IDers don't offer any evidence for their position. They claim to--but they do not.

You say "good luck with the demarcation problem" at the comparison to astrology--does that mean you would apply the same argument here to astrology? Or does it mean that you recognize astrology is not science?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 2:21:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:20:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Put this is in philosophy since it is obviously a question in the domain of philosophy of science.

"The denier that ID [intelligent design] is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken."

-- Thomas Nagel

Thoughts?

The phraseology used, particularly the use of "admits," suggests the speaker assumes he is irrefutably correct, which is an unscientific vantage.

But, to approach intelligent design in and of itself, to prove it would require the identification of a designer. Without that identification, it is unfalsifiable, in the sense that it would be unscientific.

On the other hand, I would argue that something does not necessarily need to be scientific to be rigorous or convincing. Visual art, music, pleasure, pain, and indulgence are all unscientific, but offer a great deal to humanity that science cannot.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:00:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:20:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Put this is in philosophy since it is obviously a question in the domain of philosophy of science.

"The denier that ID [intelligent design] is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken."

-- Thomas Nagel

Thoughts?

I am surprised this is coming from you.

Would you accept invisible angels move the planets as an alternative scientific theory to gravity ? I am guessing no.

Well why not ? is it not because for the same reasons why some one rejects ID as science ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 7:29:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't see why ID wouldn't be science. ID is just the theory that something purposefully designed life. For all we know about the universe, that might be true.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 8:40:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:20:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Put this is in philosophy since it is obviously a question in the domain of philosophy of science.

"The denier that ID [intelligent design] is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken."

-- Thomas Nagel

Thoughts?

I don't know why Nagel keeps using the word scientific, since ID has absolutely no basis in science. Science is about the world we can detect, observe, and test. ID is about what lies beyond our ability to do so. It is practically out of the reach of science by definition.

As far as the main point I think he was making, I will agree for the most part if we change the last word from "mistaken" to "unsupported". Which of course doesn't mean that I think arguments for ID have any validity.