Toward an Intelligent Design Science

[C1ay]

Intelligent Design Science is an oxymoron. It requires a leap of faith and therefore is religion, not science. JMO

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is a facade that separates us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the universe.

...

Originally Posted by same

The real universe contains the properties that produce life and intelligence.

...

Originally Posted by same

I object to anyone declaring as fact that which they cannot prove.

Tell me again...has anyone said science is not based on empirical evidence? Or that the scientific method is not based on empirical evidence? Has anyone said science is based on absolute facts? Man, you must have read the wrong books...

You are full of it, aren't you. you throw a lot of assumptions about scientists not "knowing what a force is" and other nice phrases but I have yet to see that anything you write is not based on just that - assumptions.

Then you ask everyone else to prove that they are right, without offering a shred of evidence yourself.

Sorry pal. The burden of evidence lies on you. You are the one making extraordinary claims, you're the one who needs to come up with proof.

You already stated you think our universe is the results of intelligent design. Fine. But you can't prove it by saying there is a different science, a "real" science, without showing us what this science is.

In fact, you seem to think that science is a lot of "truths". But the only one throwing around "truths" here is you. Science is about knowledge and learning - and making errors. Who cares if you want to call it a belief system or not? That doesn't change anything, now, does it?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

The operation of the universe is controlled. That is why we observe consistency.

= an assumption. Prove it.

For example, the cause of electromagnetism is declared to be electric charge. No one knows what is electric charge.

I think you need to explain this one.

What needs to be postulated are properties of the universe that cause matter to form life and generate individual intelligent thought.

And those properties are:

(list them here)

[James Putnam]

James: I was unable to respond, using reply, to Tormods message with my quotes and his responses intact. I copied the messages here. I apologize for this. I need to become accustomed to the method of replies used here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Putnam
What do you claim as the cause of intelligence?

Tormod: I have made no claims for the cause of intelligence. I have said many times here at Hypography that I do not know what intelligence is.

James: Do you champion mechanical materialism? Do you believe that intelligence evolved? Do you believe that mechanical materialism can be the cause of the evolution of intelligence. What do you believe?

Quote:
Everything else you think you know is the product of your intelligence.

Tormod: Right. Which again is the product of my interaction with my surroundings and my genetic inheritance, no matter how you twist or turn it. Which philosopher should we choose? Plato? Aristotle? Augustine? Kant? Hume? Or perhaps some more recent philosopher? Russell? Kuhn? Goedel?

James: Your intelligence cannot be the product of your interaction with your surroundings. You conclusions may be such a product. However, The intelligence comes first. Your surroundings in no way cause intelligence. Do you believe your intelligence is caused by a mechanical world? Either you are claiming there is a cause or you are not. If you are not claiming there is a cause, then I stand by my statement. Insofar as human logic is concerned intelligence is uncaused.

Quote:
And I know a scientific dogma when I see it.

Tormod: LOL. What did I write that was scientific dogma?

James: When you said "Cosmology is not the application of theoretical physics to the observation of the universe - it is the formulation of ideas about the universe using language from many different sciences." You say this as if the ideas are scientifically properly related to one another. How does physics theory relate to life and intelligence? I cannot tell what you believe. Do you defend mechanical materialism or not?

Tormod: There was hardly anything in my post to qualify as either scientific nor dogma. Nice try, though. Playing ping-pong is something we're good at here at Hypography.

James: But are there answers here about the origin and operation of the universe?

Tormod: Your crusade against theoretical physics is not a scientific project, but a religious attempt at getting rid of unwanted ideas.

James: It is a scientific project. Your beliefs do not define science. If you have scientific facts to explain the operation of the universe, then what are they?

Tormod: I don't understand why you choose to publish such ideas at a scientific forum. And I also fail to see why you posted it in the "Philosophy of Science" as you are so opposed to the workings of science. Why not a frontal attack in the Physics forum?

James: I do attack physics theory directly. However, I wished to discuss the cause of intelligence. I wished to discuss a relationship between intelligence and the operation of the universe. If you think it should be moved, then please do so. I will debate this in either forum.

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Intelligent Design Science is an oxymoron. It requires a leap of faith and therefore is religion, not science. JMO

I do not know what you believe about the operation of the universe. However, if you are defending mechanical materialism, than you are using leaps of faith in arriving at your conclusion. Explain something.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

James: I was unable to respond, using reply, to Tormods message with my quotes and his responses intact. I copied the messages here. I apologize for this. I need to become accustomed to the method of replies used here.

James, feel free to experiment in the Test forum. Do you have the "Standard" editor turned on (check this under "Options" on your UserCP).

the only browser I know of that has problems with the vBulletin editor is Safari, although there may be others of course.

[James Putnam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Putnam
Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is a facade that separates us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the universe.

...

Quote:
Originally Posted by same
The real universe contains the properties that produce life and intelligence.

...

Quote:
Originally Posted by same
I object to anyone declaring as fact that which they cannot prove.

Tormod: Tell me again...has anyone said science is not based on empirical evidence? Or that the scientific method is not based on empirical evidence? Has anyone said science is based on absolute facts? Man, you must have read the wrong books...

James: There are only facts. You can try to excuse the practice of putting theory forward as fact by reserving the right to say they are not absolute facts. However, you do not get to do that with me. What do you believe are the properties of this universe? Does the mechanical materialism of theoretical physics explain anything for you?

Tormod: You are full of it, aren't you. you throw a lot of assumptions about scientists not "knowing what a force is" and other nice phrases but I have yet to see that anything you write is not based on just that - assumptions.

James: This is good. You explain nothing about the operation of the universe. I challenge mechanical materialism, are you defending it or not? You charge me with throwing around assemptions. What do you know for fact about the operation of the universe besides effects?

Tormod: Then you ask everyone else to prove that they are right, without offering a shred of evidence yourself.

James: Will you defend mechanical materialism?

Tormod: Sorry pal. The burden of evidence lies on you. You are the one making extraordinary claims, you're the one who needs to come up with proof.

James: Theoretical physics makes extraordinary claims about the operation of the universe. Mechanical materialists make extraordinary claims about the evolution of life and intelligence. Where is the proof? Do you defend any of this or not? I say that mechanical materialism has no relevance to the development of life and intelligence. It cannot. Mechanical theory pretends to explain why objects change their velocities. How does change of velocity give rise to intelligence?

Tormod: You already stated you think our universe is the results of intelligent design. Fine. But you can't prove it by saying there is a different science, a "real" science, without showing us what this science is.
Tormod: In fact, you seem to think that science is a lot of "truths". But the only one throwing around "truths" here is you. Science is about knowledge and learning - and making errors. Who cares if you want to call it a belief system or not? That doesn't change anything, now, does it?

James: Sure it does. It takes mechanical materialists out of the driver's seat. I do not think that science is a lot of truths. I do think that mechanical materialism is not science.


James

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Tormod: Science is about knowledge and learning - and making errors. Who cares if you want to call it a belief system or not? That doesn't change anything, now, does it?

James: Sure it does. It takes mechanical materialists out of the driver's seat. I do not think that science is a lot of truths. I do think that mechanical materialism is not science.

So you conclude that mechanical materialism is not a science. I agree. you conclude that science is not a lot of truths. I agree.

I fail to see the problem. Mechanical materialism simply is not an interesting world view.

As for the rest, read my prior post.

[Buffy]

Whoo, gettin' dizzy here. There's are some fundamental problems with this discussion going forward. The entire post back to me consisted of ignoring the quotes you replicated and repeated over and over:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

I object to anyone declaring as fact that which they cannot prove.

...and then you proceed to demand proof for things that have been well proven. There certainly are things that have not been proven like string theory, but you keep using the existence of theories without evidence to invalidate all theories, and you do this by simply going back to your "belief" that "mechanical materialism" (which is an epithet used only by intelligent design people, and has no common usage in science).

Then because we don't repeat the entire body of *well proven* scientific results on the things that are proven you keep repeating:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Please do not then claim it has anything to do with solving the problems of life and intelligence.

Science does solve these problems quite well in a lot of cases. Where it doesn't we're working on it. Funny here you drop your issue of "causes" which in science is not relevant.

And when faced with facts like the time experiment, you use some fancy mumbo jumbo to try to say that these tests don't prove anything:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

You avoid explaining why this experiment proves that time slows. You think you are in the superior position, but you do not support what you say. You insist that I should disprove your unproven positions. The clocks slowed down. That is what is learned. The clocks are not time. The clocks are matter interacting with matter. You do not know the cause of their interaction. You do not know why that cause should slow. You certainly do not know that time is that cause. Time was not contained in a vessel traveling along with the clock. It was not experimented on. We cannot handle time.

Its a common technique among intelligent design arguments to simply try to tire everyone out by saying "you haven't proved it," when there are piles of books showing the proof. Conversely, intelligent design claims that atempt to refute empirical evidence like this one that "Clocks are not time" are complete non-sequiter: clocks measure time, if you do not accept that measurement is a valid mechanism for providing empirical proof of anything, then no matter how much proof we show you, you will simply deny any of this evidence is valid. How do you know that that tree is a tree? You can see it, feel it, but you can still deny its existence because sight and touch are "matter interacting with matter?" Whoa.

Now your whole purpose here is still to try to 1) put a scientific veneer on your claims to give them legitimacy, and 2) to claim that all science is inadequate unless it shows the ultimate causes of intelligence. Now if you won't accept what the scientific method is, then it isn't science, its philosophy and metaphysics, which science doesn't deal with. Your claim that unless it does deal with metaphysics then it should all be considered invalid, is dumbfounding. Your only point seems to be that no science should be bothered with unless it illuminates the issue of "causes of intelligence."

Originally Posted by James Putnam

That is why I am calling your idea of science for what it is. It is a belief system. It is not empirical.

At this point you're just denying the fact that there is a well-established and growing body of knowledge going back thousands of years called the Scientific Method. It is the standard canard of intelligent design and creationist beliefs, and it is justified solely by claiming that the process of testing hypotheses does not "prove" anything. We can't really have a discussion on any of this unless we come to an agreement on a definition of reality. If all measurements are invalid, you're right: there is no science. But your claim that measurements are invalid are based on no evidence you have presented, only a self-serving manipulation of a scientific statement.

You can keep asking us to provide proof, but if you won't accept the libraries full of proof that exist, there's no point in wasting our wind here.

Originally Posted by James Putnam

You may twist this anyway you wish, but in the end you will have to establish that you are correct by explaining how mechanical properties can be the cause of life and intelligence. Your problem begins even before this point. You cannot even prove your mechanical properties.

Go to the science section of the library. Thousands of books to choose from that talk about mechanical properties. Try Galileo. Try Newton. They're filled with explanations of mechanical properties. On "causes of intelligence" again, there are lots of threads here that discuss it. To summarize, the scientific evidence shows that life evolves to take random mutations and those that are beneficial are passed on successfully to successive generations. The evidence is based on the scientific method, which you both claim as your justification of truth and derisivly deny when it conflicts with your beliefs.

Originally Posted by James Putnam

I am challenging the viability of mechanical materialism as a theory. Are you or are you not defending it? If you are defending it then please proceed to do so.

I don't know. "mechanical materialism" is an intelligent design term used to denigrate the scientific method, but I'm not really sure what it means. We here are defending the scientific method, but unfortunately you are not able to work within its definitions of hypothesis, testing and measurement. Its okay not to believe that this process is relevant, but that does not make it a "belief system"

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Of course it is logical. I know you believe it is not, but your conclusion is incorrect.

Again, formal logic is a principal element of the scientific method, and you can't claim to be talking about science if you don't understand it. What you are claiming here is that:

All apples are red therefore all red things are apples.

There is nothing we can say here, other than if this is your definition of logic, any and all claims can be "believed" to be true, and there is no truth. Thus there's no point in providing you proof. But I guess that's your point:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Your theories are only ideas about the kinds of causes in which you would like to believe. Believe in them freely, but do not claim they are fact. And, please do not claim that they represent the real properties of this universe.

You do not appreciate the significance of achieving unity. That is fine. Disunity is certainly in evidence in physics theory. You may be satisfied with this piecemeal approach, but I am not.

Nice that you want to acheive unity. Its sad that you don't recognize that many scientific theories are intended to do just that.

Originally Posted by James Putnam

My position is that you do not get to declare your theories to be facts. You do not know what is cause.

I don't know how many times we can repeat this: a lot of the time, we don't care about the cause. Newton had no idea what "caused" gravity, but that did not prevent his theory for accurately predicting the movements of the planets perfectly up to the point where we were able to see discrepancies, which Einstein then added to in order to explain the discrepancies. That's science!

But you come back to your completely undefended assertion:

Originally Posted by James Putnam

We see what our intelligence lets us see through a process of interpreting information. Intelligence comes first and conclusions come second. Explain the cause of intelligence.

Which basically is saying: "unless you prove that I'm wrong that an outside intelligent force is causing all things to happen, all science is bunk." If you want to have a metaphysical discussion, fine, but don't call it science. Its not. If you want to argue about evolution, do it in an evolution thread: This section of the site is for philosophy of science, and while you completely deny all of the commonly accepted and proven principles of the scientific method, this is the place for this discussion, and we hope we've been some help in describing both for you and others, the meaning of science.

Please come back when you have something to say about your own or other sources of evidence that outside intelligence is necessary to explain physical phenomena. We haven't seen it yet....

Cheers,
Buffy

[bumab]

James- are you arguing against the scientific method or materialism? The scientific process cannot "prove" anything, it merely finds evidence. So to claim that evidence collected by the scientific process does not prove anything is a non-argument. Of course it doesn't, it's not supposed to.

Mechanical materialism, as I understand it, is still alive and well in the scientific community. It's the belief that nothing outside of the mechanical workings of our universe exist. Thus, there is really no meaning, because we are all a bunch of Newtonian (or Einstienian, or whatever) billiard balls acting according to a few fundamental equations. No free will, no intellegence, no nothing. That's certainly debatable. BUT, that's not the scientific process. I would guess many people would consider it a philisophical extension of the process, but I think that's irresponsible. One shouldn't extend an idea past it's limits and call it science.

But your argument is not clear... Evidence for intellegent design? Short of God's signature on the dark side of the moon, I don't think you'll find empiracal evidence. Now that could be because God wanted an entirely self-sustaining universe. Or that he doesn't exist. Neither of those questions can be answered by science. I have my opinions (the former), but it's not based on material evidence- obviously, because that wouldn't make sense.

Do you have EVIDENCE for intellegent design? While that would be exciting, I'll be nice and not ask for the proof you are demanding from the other side. Got to be fair.