Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
This manuscript's subject, UIDE, discusses these theories, at great lengths, and is Science not Theology.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
The theory of Intelligent design (Id) by enthusiast religious teachers is Theology and UIDE, unlike Intelligent design, is Science.
|
Fripro, what I fail to understand is why you insist UIDE is science?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
Does the Universe have consciousness, and is the Earth a living organism?
|
These are wonderful questions. If you wish to answer these philosophically have at it. If you wish to form a scientific hypothesis, you need to propose some physical traits that would allow you to measure/detect that consciousness/life.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
... I would also agree with InfiniteNow from HSF, with respect to UIDE. It may be beyond absolute proof, at our current level of understanding.
|
Absolute proof is not required for a scientific theory. Just a hypothesis created after making observations. Then tests created to disprove the hypothesis. If they fail to disprove the hypothesis the hypothesis becomes a theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
UIDE is a roadmap giving the reader considerable data to find his way...
|
I have seen no data that you have shared with us, only suppositions.
The closest I have seen is your suggestion of a particle you termed a 'wit'. Perhaps you could expand on this, what are the hypothetical properties of this 'wit' (other than its mass which you have mentioned. Is there a type of test to detect them directly? How do they intereact with other particles.
In conclusion, your UIDE sounds, reads and looks like a religious statement. If you do truly intend for it to be a scientific theory it needs to follow the basic facets the scientific method:
source: from Wikopedia
************************************************** ****
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
****************************
