Intelligent Design stomps all others.

[Baldy]

The Earth's climate has been changing for 4-5 billion years.
The Global Warming alarmist's data goes back about 150 years.

'nough said.



See what I did there?

Yeah:

Kinda weak J, you can do better.

[SeattleGriz]

That is right SG. I am totally stymied so I will defer to the D1B defense and shove my thumb up my ass.

Hmmmm, past midnight on a work nite, drunk, working on your creationism threads.

Normal (decent) person would be getting a good night's rest to be ready to face a hard day on the job hunt. Or better yet, be ready for work at a part time job in addition to a serious job search.

Still waiting to start my job. It has been killing me, as you can tell.

[kalm]

[youtube][/youtube]

[JMU DJ]

That last one is for the funny

[youngterrier]

[youtube][/youtube]

ALL HAIL SAGAN!!!!!

[Pwns]

<facepalm>
The reason why we say scientific claims have to be falsifiable is because if they aren't falsifiable, then any hypothesis can be considered science. Theories are falsifiable. Hypothesis's don't have to be falsifiable. A claim that is can't be falsifiable with evidence cannot be scientific. For instance, take the LGM, Say we want to ask the question "Why does the moon not revolve like the earth does?" Your hypothesis can be that the LGMs living on the dark side of the mon don't let it with their super technology. Is that falsifiable? Most certainly. But in terms of the existence of certain things, it has to be falsifiable. For instance, the hypothesis depends on the existence of LGMs. If you prove the existence of LGMs, it has merit, if there are no LGMs, it has no merit. If we send a satellite to the moon, and it takes pictures of the surface, we can conclude that there are no LGMs on the surface of the moon, and thus the hypothesis is false.

Now, here's the hard part. If you keep adding on things like "oh well you can't see them, or touch them, etc etc" it no longer becomes a scientific hypothesis. Because you can't falsify those claims. Everything we observe says that they don't exists, therefore it is false, but when you stretch it to where it's beyond our perceptions of observations, you're no longer making a scientific claim. The fact that the moon is not revolving is not proof for LGMs, as LGMs aren't proovable. It's clearly something else.

The existence of extra terrestrial life is most certainly falsifiable, and it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. The problem is that we have limited perception of the universe because we can't visit all of the planets or see all of them in detail. If we had the ability, we could falsify it. The existence of extra-terrestrial life is not an area of science because we admit that our perception is not broad enough.

On the flip side, our perceptions of biology and the world we live in are quite falsifiable, so intelligent design is not a legit theory.

It's hard to falsify cosmic claims because of our perceptions, but in terms of the natural world, those are really easy to falsify because we can observe them anywhere.

I always get a kick out of people using the falsifiability routine. Is the many-worlds hypothesis falsifiable? How about string theory? I don't see how either really are. So does that mean that those things are not science?

And on your latter point, we can't do experiments that span billions of years, so that's equally as impractical as searching all of the stars.

[youngterrier]

<facepalm>
The reason why we say scientific claims have to be falsifiable is because if they aren't falsifiable, then any hypothesis can be considered science. Theories are falsifiable. Hypothesis's don't have to be falsifiable. A claim that is can't be falsifiable with evidence cannot be scientific. For instance, take the LGM, Say we want to ask the question "Why does the moon not revolve like the earth does?" Your hypothesis can be that the LGMs living on the dark side of the mon don't let it with their super technology. Is that falsifiable? Most certainly. But in terms of the existence of certain things, it has to be falsifiable. For instance, the hypothesis depends on the existence of LGMs. If you prove the existence of LGMs, it has merit, if there are no LGMs, it has no merit. If we send a satellite to the moon, and it takes pictures of the surface, we can conclude that there are no LGMs on the surface of the moon, and thus the hypothesis is false.

Now, here's the hard part. If you keep adding on things like "oh well you can't see them, or touch them, etc etc" it no longer becomes a scientific hypothesis. Because you can't falsify those claims. Everything we observe says that they don't exists, therefore it is false, but when you stretch it to where it's beyond our perceptions of observations, you're no longer making a scientific claim. The fact that the moon is not revolving is not proof for LGMs, as LGMs aren't proovable. It's clearly something else.

The existence of extra terrestrial life is most certainly falsifiable, and it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. The problem is that we have limited perception of the universe because we can't visit all of the planets or see all of them in detail. If we had the ability, we could falsify it. The existence of extra-terrestrial life is not an area of science because we admit that our perception is not broad enough.

On the flip side, our perceptions of biology and the world we live in are quite falsifiable, so intelligent design is not a legit theory.

It's hard to falsify cosmic claims because of our perceptions, but in terms of the natural world, those are really easy to falsify because we can observe them anywhere.

I always get a kick out of people using the falsifiability routine. Is the many-worlds hypothesis falsifiable? How about string theory? I don't see how either really are. So does that mean that those things are not science?

And on your latter point, we can't do experiments that span billions of years, so that's equally as impractical as searching all of the stars.

Many worlds hypothesis is philosophical, not scientific. You can attempt to pursue truth and deny proven truth under the presumption that it might not be as perceived, but you won't get anything done that way. It's as Marx said "Philosophy is to Science as masturbation is to sex." I'm not a big fan of string theory, and about half of physicists aren't either. And, from what I've read, it is falsifiable.

Just because something is impractical doesn't mean it is impossible. And we can do experiments that span millions and billions of years starting now, it's just not really logical to do so.

You're getting philosophy mixed up with science. You can philosophically postulate anything as long as it's logical, but scientifically there is only so much you can postulate.

[houndawg]

It was aliens.

Makes more sense than virgins having babies and dead people flying away up in to the sky.

[JohnStOnge]

YT, I just came back to the end of this thread after not looking at it for a while. I do not understand why you are so devoted to the "falsifiability" notion when it is so obviously a fallacy. But to each his own.

[youngterrier]

YT, I just came back to the end of this thread after not looking at it for a while. I do not understand why you are so devoted to the "falsifiability" notion when it is so obviously a fallacy. But to each his own.

because if you don't have falsifiability in your scientific hypothesis, it no longer becomes scientific. It's not scientific unless it can be proven wrong. String Theory can be proven wrong(or rather elements of string theory can be proven wrong, as it is a massive field). Every single scientific theory can be proven wrong if certain evidence arises. When you have something like intelligent design or anything involving God doing anything, not only is there probably a far better naturalistic explanation waiting to be found, but ultimately saying God did anything is very hard to refute. For instance, you can have a theory that God holds the universe in orbit and Newtonian gravity could fail at any second if he wanted to release it, however that's not falsifiable unless it happens that's impossible to test.

You can continue to call that a fallacy but ultimately all scientific truths are pursued based on their falsifiablity. You postulate the existence of aliens, and quite frankly whether or not aliens exist is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. Science doesn't deal in whether or not something exists or not, it deals with learning how what we know exists works.

Without falsifiablity, you open the door for any "theory" or "hypothesis" to be accepted as scientific. This is really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

You can continue to say that my reasoning is fallacious, but if anything that's YOUR reasoning. You understand the difference between science and philosophy.

We live in the universe? Nah, Let's present the alternative "Matrix" theory.
The World is 4.54 billion years old? Nah, Let's present the alternative "God Created everything 5 seconds ago so it would look that way" theory.
Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago? Nah, let's say God made the world 6,000 years ago and cursed the dinosaurs for not reaching Noah's ark fast enough by making them look older than they were.
Newtonian Gravity? Nah, God holds us down so we don't fly up and see Heaven.

^^^^^See the problem with these examples? Could they be true? to the Laymen, maybe. But are they scientific? Most certainly not! Whenever you open the door to anything that isn't falsifiable to be in a classroom to be taught as science, you open to the door for blind speculation and falsehood. Academia and Scientists do not deal with theories that are not testable because there's no way of knowing if they are true or not. So why waste our time giving them "equal" time, when we can find a better solution?

I mean, seriously, you're an idiot if you don't accept falsifiablity as a criteria for the scientific method. It's a relatively new criteria, but it's been around for much longer than I have been living.