GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ July 07 2014,07:53) | | Quote | | It just annoys someone who does not see the scientific challenge in developing novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison. Thinking that way is being as scientific as science gets. |
Of course there is scientific value in developing a new theory, but science requires such methods as providing strict definitions, correctly reviewing and understanding past work, collecting pertinent evidence (including measurements, observations, and/or experiments), testing multiple working hypotheses, and providing a logically coherent explanation for the results, none of which you are doing. So no, you are not being "as scientific as science gets": quite the opposite, in fact.
| Quote | | novel theory that does in fact make the Darwinian view a big yawn in comparison |
It's not a theory and, no, it doesn't do that. |
I'm the one stuck having to gather evidence and test the model while you chant the usual that makes it seem like you are.
The problem is that machine intelligence 101 is not good enough for you. Instead of putting something better on the table to explain the phenomenon of intelligent cause you need a tribunal where you declare what is machine intelligence 101 while reciting sciency sounding political slogans back-up by academic snobbery.
This is what testing a theory looks like, where one of the problems needing to be solved is evident by the overwhelming number of subjective definitions for intelligence:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-646549
As in a public school board hearing you answer to the public/taxpayers, including the segment of the population like Robert Byers. And to follow up on what I said to Texas Teach the same sort of problem became evident in comments of a new topic at the NCSE blog.
http://ncse.com/blog.......3906919
Even Google is keeping Occam's razor busy today:
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
