N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
People at Sandwalk are telling you the same things we've been telling you:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......nt-form
| Quote | photosynthesis
Sunday, June 07, 2015 8:46:00 AM
Gary,
That's not empirical evidence, that's simulated wishful thinking. |
| Quote | bwilson295
Sunday, June 07, 2015 9:18:00 AM
Gary, you have a model. Biologists and scientists of other sorts have enough experience with models to know that they often don't work. They must be tested with real-life data and either discarded or modified. Since this is, as you've written elsewhere, a bottom-up model for the emergence of intelligence, it would be good to start near the bottom. Make it clear how your idea of molecular intelligence better explains what molecules do than does the current idea that molecules lack intelligence. Make some predictions about molecules that can be observed and measured. Find a chemist to test your predictions (or learn enough chemistry to test this yourself). Believe me, if your idea helps chemists understand molecules better and chemists start writing about this, biologists will pay attention. |
| Quote | bwilson295
Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:28:00 PM
Gary, You are confused about where the burden of proof lies. Any new idea has to earn its way in science, in the sense that there must be, or certainly appear to be, evidence to support it. Your model at this point is purely theoretical and it doesn't fit well with established science. That's not a bad thing, but that's only the start. To put it another way, you care about your model. You think it's true. You have reason to promote its acceptance by providing empirical evidence for it. I don't care about your model. I think it's wrong, though of course I could be wrong about that. But I don't have any reason to spend thought or time on it, beyond comments in this blog. And I have enough of my own work to keep me busy for the next couple of lifetimes. If someone is going to provide the kind of evidence that will get your model accepted as a useful idea about how the world works, that person will be you, or perhaps a good chemist you manage to intrigue with your ideas. |
1) It's not a theory, but a model.
2) You have not presented any good reasons why it should supersede what other people have written about Intelligent Design and you have not published it in any standard venues, so other people writing stuff about standard Intelligent Design and ignoring your stuff or being unaware of it does not constitute an error on their part. As always, your model does not automatically become the default model that anyone else has to address.
3) No one else is responsible for testing it: someone might, but you have to demonstrate that that would be worthwhile. (Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, but you have none.) If you can demonstrate that it might be a valuable idea that can solve some interesting problems and be worth paying attention to, you'd have scientists all over it, but that will never happen until you satisfactorily resolve all or most of the various shortcomings that EVERYONE tells you about.
4) We do not have to test your model further or help you develop it more to see that it has multiple fatal flaws that make further work on it pointless in its current state. The obvious flaws are all failures of the obvious preliminary "tests" that all ideas undergo. (Do the claims make sense? No. Is the logic valid? No. Does the author understand the fundamentals of the field? No. Are the definitions satisfactory? No. Has the model been ground-truthed? No. Has it successfully made any logically valid predictions that differ from what standard theory predicts? No.)
|
