GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 16 2014,17:28) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2014,16:54) | Typo, should read:
Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work. |
In both cases we have typically (not always, but ideally) developed multiple hypotheses about how something works and are testing the hypotheses, but yes, the two approaches can differ in many ways. However, there is a much vaster gulf between what scientists do in either modelling or experimental work on the one hand and what you do on the other.
On the whole, devising and running a useful experiment is a higher level of science than creating a computer model, particularly when (like you) you make no effort to ground-truth the model and simply slap labels on variables with no attempt to assess their veracity:
PlaneElevation = 0: AngelLift=0
Do
AngelLift = AngelLift+1
PlaneElevation = PlaneElevation + AngelLift
Loop
See, in my model of planes flying because angels hold them aloft, we clearly see lift by angels increasing, thus proving the premise of planes flying because they are held up by angels.
In what universe do you think your model explains how any complex and unexplained phenomena work? You don't have adequate operational definitions, so you don't know what you are talking about nor how to measure it. You won't ground-truth your rubbish, nor will you offer any evidence for the existence and efficacy of the mechanisms that you propose. You fling undefined labels around for phenomena and processes, with no effort to demonstrate their applicability and no attempt to describe how they work, beyond flinging around even more labels. For example, calling "molecular intelligence" and "cellular intelligence" self-similar and saying that one emerges from the other is not an explanation when:
1) You haven't documented the existence of either one,
2) You don't have any way of quantifying or measuring either one,
3) You won't provide a formula for the fractal relationship or a fractal dimension or state over what orders of magnitude the relationship applies,
4) Something that is self-similar to lower levels cannot "emerge" from those lower levels. Either it is emergent or it is self-similar, not both.
5) Neither emergence nor self-similarity result from design under usual circumstances, except for very atypical and special instances of design that are intended to be examples of self-similarity or emergence,
6) You haven't provided any evidence for design or a designer
7) You haven't discussed any processes involved in design |
The first two are covered by a computer model that measures and quantifies a number of things with charts and graphs and more. In a model like this you simply show on the screen the numbers in whatever variables there are in the algorithm. All of the variables needed for quantifying or measuring intelligence are all already there. I cannot add more for you. What you want is simply not there, not needed for a standard way to quantify or measure intelligence from 0 on up to whatever numbers you get for a human, our cells, or molecular level intelligence systems.
Since number 3, 4, and 5 are within the domain of this theory I will see what I can do about them, fractal wise.
Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.
See my signature line again for what immediately makes some of your increasingly ambiguous demands out of bounds of science. Others doing the same thing that you are is not a viable excuse either.
Do unto other's theory, as you would have them do unto yours. If you don't then you end up on the wrong side of science and have zero credibility at a place like UD. Instead of a sharing of ideas that helps all get to where we want to go in science it's what happened to KeithS who was instead bombarded by thousands of objections, in way long threads made just for them. In my case I explained what I had to think about and where useful work from, in a relatively short amount of time and reading. I'm now able to answer your reply, while the regulars at UD carry on with that in mind. It should be like in a classroom where someone learns something new that's not controversial to them at all. After explaining things it's a good sign to see around as many questions that I received then they're back to work on whatever they each like to work on.
What matters is the slow but steady progress in a very exciting area of science now being pioneered, where there are few experts and the phrase "intelligent cause" was no kidding "meant to be" or else there is another conflict that has the unforgiving power of science forever working against you. You then look silly to future generations by asking questions that lead right out of bounds of science into making a designer (God) pop out of test tubes to grant at least a few wishes during scientific questioning to prove they are as omnipotent as to be expected after seeing the PNAS ex-nihilo paper.
I must add that I do not care to know who Texas Teach is. And the only legal battles on my mind are ones brought against me from those who are quick to bring anything pertaining to ID to court or other authority outside of science to bog me down in legal quagmire. I have to do what I can to avoid another Dover from happening on account of the theory I'm developing, while making the theory useful to the ID movement in a way that makes UD and even the DI part of the science fun. What matters is that we all keep making slow steady scientific progress into the uncharted science galore where we "Soak Up The Sun" along the way, not head towards civil war and even worse that ultimately only leads to regret:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GA_rIls
--------------
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.
|
