Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.

Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction.

Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?).

I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[NuclearWarfare]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

[Doc glasgow]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

By normal definition, a scientific theory is one that has emerged through the scientific method, broadly defined (evolution generally defies controlled hypothesis testing, but there can be more to science than that). Intelligent design is no such thing.

Of course, people might take the approach that you do, and adopt a widely used colloquial definition of "theory". But if you take that definition of "theory", isn't "scientific theory" redundant? Can you think of a "theory" under that definition that doesn't relate to science?

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

[RMHED]

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific.

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

[Doc glasgow]

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific.

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science. It is the last bastion of naive modernism.

The equivalent would be me saying Mormons aren't Christians, because all true Christians agree Mormons aren't Christians. QED

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science.

In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific".

Of course, scientists, like the rest of humanity, are fallible, prejudiced, and at times intellectually dishonest. For that reason, they can refuse to accept as scientific theories and fields that are, by their own definition, scientific. But that is not an argument against the "scientific" definition of science.

Who determines the methodology, oh yeah other scientists! Hardly a level playing field.

It is a peculiar egalitarianism that demands that scientists and non-scientists be placed on a "level playing field" on scientific questions.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[Doc glasgow]

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science.

In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific".

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

[Sarcasticidealist]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available.

Darwin's theory is predictive, and falsifiable (at least in principle - as I said earlier, it does defy controlled attempts at nullification, since it's difficult to "evolve" organisms in a lab or over a reasonable period of time). The "theory" of intelligent design is neither.

There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes - always using the same methodological framework.

[radek]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available.

Darwin's theory is predictive, and falsifiable (at least in principle - as I said earlier, it does defy controlled attempts at nullification, since it's difficult to "evolve" organisms in a lab or over a reasonable period of time). The "theory" of intelligent design is neither.

There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes - always using the same methodological framework.

Evolution can be tested via inferential statistics, based on data that is made available to us (or was placed there by the aliens to mislead us of course). It's not as good having controlled experiments but the ideal standard is still there. Astronomy or for that matter Psychology or Economics have the same problem. That doesn't make them unscientific just means that progress is harder. (On the other hand medicine CAN have many forms of controlled experiments and they still get quite hokey (by that I don't mean that "Alternative medicine" is better - it's worse, far worse in most cases - just that the mainstream stuff isn't very good to begin with), maybe because the training in statistics is crappy)

Of course I agree that ID is not a scientific theory and that it has no business being in a "Scientific theories" categories on Wikipedia, that's just common sense.

Btw, one strong argument in favor evolution over ID is precisely how inefficient lifeforms can be. Why do you think so many people suffer from back aches? If there is/was a designer out there it was clearly either unintelligent or simply malevolent.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Evolution can be tested via inferential statistics, based on data that is made available to us (or was placed there by the aliens to mislead us of course). It's not as good having controlled experiments but the ideal standard is still there. Astronomy or for that matter Psychology or Economics have the same problem. That doesn't make them unscientific just means that progress is harder.

Absolutely; that's why I limited my comments to saying that it defies controlled attempts at nullification (by which I meant concocting laboratory experiments, in case I was unclear).

(Though psychology and economics can be quite amenable to laboratory experimentation, depending on what is to be tested.)