RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2007,03:26   

Quote (Freelurker @ Dec. 17 2007,21:41)
I made a comment over three hours ago over here:
Why Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers Tend to be More Skeptical of Darwinian Claims

But the comment is "still in moderation," so I'll post it here just in case:
6:33 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Gil wrote: ďÖwe must demonstrate that our stuff can actually work in the real world, or at least that it has a reasonable prospect of working in the real world. Ē

Thatís right, we have to provide mechanistic descriptions. We produce models.

Tell us, what is the ID model of the history of life? Oh, thatís right you donít have one; IDists excuse themselves from that.

Thatís why great majority of Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers find ID to be useless. (On what basis can I speak on behalf of these groups? Itís the same basis you have.)

BTW, for any of you who don't know, I am an engineer myself.

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 17 2007,21:53)
Oh that ain't never seein' the light of day over at the Tard Factory.  Good call to post it here.

(Indeed, my comment did not appear at UD, and no, I'm not really surprised.)

Thanks to all of you who chimed in here on this. I agree with all of your comments, to various degrees.

I would like to take this chance to give my opinion that ID critics, in general, are missing opportunities in the way they handle IDist engineers (as well as the IDist engineer wannabes and the IDist engineers-in-name-only.)

Itís true that an engineering career does not typically include much study of biology or of philosophy. But it does call for styles of thinking that are consistent with science and are inconsistent with ID. Comparisons between science and engineering work against the ID position. We should call on them to think more like engineers when they study the history of life or the history of the cosmos. Thatís the approach that I have taken in my various comments over at UD. (With only a small effect, of course.)  

The first major way to do this is to point out that engineers take a materialist approach in their work just as scientists do (and for the same reasons.) IDist engineers don't have any problem spending their work days without seriously considering if a non-material intelligent agent is affecting, or will affect, the system on which they are working. But then they go home and get on their blogs and berate scientists for behaving the same way. Many of them make their hypocrisy even more apparent by taking a position that engineers are a type of scientist.

The second major way is to talk in terms of models and modeling. Point out that models are as fundamental to science as they are to engineering and that they are purposefully absent from ID. If they can't get this part about modeling (which most of them won't) then they can't be helped (and most of them can't.)

(Yes, I realize that these approaches can only affect the lurkers and the fence-sitters.)

There are other angles to this that I would like to talk about, but I need to finish this comment. The upshot is that our side is the one supported by comparisons between science, ID, and engineering.

Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]