Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,13:47)|
|Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,10:47)|
|It's worse than that. It's not even clear how your "model" is related to your "theory". How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?|
This is a good time to again mention the (earlier linked to) Wiki for a Theory Of Operation, standard practice in electronics and engineering. You're supposed to have one for any circuit or system one designs, it's not something taken to some journal tribunal for approval as a theory:
|Theory Of Operation|
A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem.
Science teachers can just explain the above.
And the full title of the theory download is "Intelligence Design Laboratory and its Theory of Operation the Theory of Intelligent Design"
I wrote a "Theory of Operation" for an intelligence system that allows experimentation with intelligent causation events. There should be no issue at all whether it is a theory or not. Needing to make an issue out of it, right away indicates something not right in science. Problem here, is a definition for theory that is so outside of standard scientific practice that those who use it are repeating the mostly useless "layman's definition" for theory and hypothesis. I have to go by the definitions that serious scientists/engineers use. There is then no question of whether it is a theory or not.
A lot of words. None of them appear to answer my question: How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers