A scientific leap, but without the faith

Philadelhpia Inquirer ^ | Sun, Feb. 05, 2006 | Amanda Gefter

[bvw]

In this "science" article scribe Gefter boldly claims that there are no reasons for Patents.

[Coyoteman]

fyi and ===> Placemarker <===

[Chiapet]

In this "science" article scribe Gefter boldly claims that there are no reasons for Patents.

I'm not getting the connection you're making there. Please explain?

[ovrtaxt]

In the Dover courtroom, proponents of intelligent design could be heard repeating their mantra: "Evolution is just a theory. It's not a fact." Scientists would then point out the categorical error: A theory is a framework to explain the facts. A theory is one level up from fact, so the mantra ought to go, "Evolution is not just a fact. It's a theory."

The theory of intelligent design is not only not falsifiable; there is simply no way to test it. But that is not the main reason it is not science. The main reason is, that ID does not actually explain anything. When we ask, "Why is the world the way it is?" it answers, "Because it was designed that way." The world is the way it is because it is that way. That might be the furthest from a useful, satisfactory explanation you can get.

String theory has problems, too. But while intelligent design is untestable in principle, string theory is just really hard. It is quite possible some clever scientist will devise a way to test it.

That's some major leage convoluted logic.

I still don't know why people aren't free to reach their own conclusions about our origins.

OR

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting, but probably not for the evo list. It doesn't really accomplish anything.

[GLDNGUN]

So, if I understand this correctly, it should be illegal to discuss STRING THEORY in school.

[bvw]

Well, not quite. At least by scribe Gefter's take. She says Popper's falsifiability is not the big reason that ID isn't science. If so, then you'd be right: esoteric confections like string theory, multi-verses etc. would not be able to be mentioned outside of a mythology course. Yet string theory is science. Why?

Because being such an estoric theory it is "grand and beautiful". (She can say "grandiose and beautiful" that because she's never done the math of it, btw.)

[bvw]

fyi

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Are scientists still seeking a unifying theory?

If so, do they anticipate, in light of the mathematics, that it will be orderly or chaotic?

Is the theory of chaos itself one of order in chaos?

Does orderly necessarily equate to intelligent or is intelligent an idea we impose on it? (Of course all meaning is imposed by us.)

Does intelligence necessarily imply a creator?

If so, is that logical?

If not, what is all the hullabaloo about?

[spunkets]

"For instance, it is commonly said that the 1919 observation of the bending of starlight around the sun was fantastic confirmation of Einstein's theory of general relativity. And in the public eye, it was. But in reality the results were far from conclusive - perhaps only 30 percent. Still, no one would have rejected the theory based on the outcome of that experiment."

The author is absolutely wrong. Had the bending of starlight not been observed, the hypothesis would be junk.

[bvw]

I was not sure what to make of that either. It sort of begs an explanation in the essay.

[spunkets]

"string theory's inventor Leonard Susskind "

He didn't invent string theory.

[spunkets]

LOL!

[spunkets]

" It sort of begs an explanation in the essay."

The author is in over her head. She's drowning.

[RunningWolf]

Intriguing article bvw thanks for the ping.

Wolf

[betty boop]

Thanks so much for the ping, bvw, which must be a ping for later. Looks like seriously intriguing material. Will get back as soon as I can, God willing.

Meanwhile, I've pinged some friends.

[RunningWolf]

bvw,

unlearner really knows these subjects well.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

It looks as though looter-guy has been more places than forest gump.

He is a FG on the cosmic scale!

Wolf

[ovrtaxt]

Gotta love looter guy!

[bvw]

Why can I say that Inquirer has taken a stance against Patents?

The essayist writes:

But that is not the main reason it is not science. The main reason is, that ID does not actually explain anything. When we ask, "Why is the world the way it is?" it answers, "Because it was designed that way." The world is the way it is because it is that way. That might be the furthest from a useful, satisfactory explanation you can get.

By saying that examining Design is not useful and not satisfactory the Inquirer diminishes the value of any Patented Design. For by that logic, "Who cares?" about any design. It is simply unuseful and unsatisfactory, so they claim, to study Design as design.

There is NO value in reverse engineering, none in copying and incorporating the best of other designs. Instead, we engineers and scientists should (1) throw random bits of this and that into a pile a wait for natural selection to evolve it into a useful product, and (2) develop estoric fantastic equations describing the dynamics of junk in such piles because such high mathematics is grandiose and beautiful.

What a program for progress they propose, what a way to pay the bills!