General Discussion

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)

22. What do you mean by "scientifically strong"?

Thu May 16, 2013, 05:39 PM

May 2013

I think that the germ of what you're saying is about right, but the vocabulary you're using to express it is imprecise.

I think that useful categories include
"Is this theory compatible with the observable evidence?"
"Does this theory have predictive power?"
"Is this theory parsimonious?" (that is, does it follow as a direct consequence from very limited assumptions, or does it require large and sweeping assumptions).

All true statements lie in the first category. It is only worth acting on a theory if it meets all three. Evolution meets all three. ID meets only the first, so we can reasonably act as though it isn't true, but shouldn't place any confidence in that.

"Is this theory scientifically strong" seems to overlap both the first two categories, but rather more nebulously.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I.D can explain more of the observed facts evolution can: how evidence works. [View all] Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 OP

Deus ex machina, literally. eShirl May 2013 #1

The peacock's tail, the extravagant proboscis of the male tblue37 May 2013 #2

"Are" is overly confident, I think. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #4

The peacock's tail as a consequence of sexual selection is also supported by HereSince1628 May 2013 #21

The Problem With That, Sir, Is That It Is Untestable The Magistrate May 2013 #3

That's a red herring, I think. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #5

If You Cannot Test The Validity Of An Explanation, It is An Article Of Faith The Magistrate May 2013 #6

Or a guess. But that's an orthogonal question to whether or not it's right. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #7

Claiming It Does Explain, Sir, Claims Validity For It, Making It An Article Of Faith The Magistrate May 2013 #10

That's not my view, stated or otherwise - was that a deliberate or an accidental misstatement? Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #13

Then This Whole Thing, Sir, Is Not Worth Disturbing the Path Of a Single Electron Over The Magistrate May 2013 #14

I strongly disagree. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #16

"I think that a lot of people don't really understand how evidence works" MattBaggins May 2013 #44

Well, no. Of course it doesn't, and I didn't say it did. Please read before commenting. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #57

you know what Intelligent Design is, don't you? CreekDog May 2013 #17

What do you mean by "scientifically strong"? Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #22

um, no zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #53

I'm afraid that's a complete non-sequitur; I think you may have misunderstood. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #54

a fine example zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #55

Please read before commenting. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #56

A perfect debunk DonB May 2013 #34

We seriously have proponents of Intelligent Design at DU?... SidDithers May 2013 #8

I've never seen any, but it's a useful illustration. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #9

"God did it" is not an explanation of anything. It is a suspension of explanation. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #11

No and yes respectively. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #12

No it is purely a suspension of explanation MattBaggins May 2013 #45

why does existence exist? DeadEyeDyck May 2013 #31

Why is yellow yellow? n/t Bolo Boffin May 2013 #40

You make a good point about the meaning of "explain" mathematic May 2013 #15

ID pretends that the Intelligent Designer is the only reasonable explanation. It's not. DetlefK May 2013 #18

I much prefer "we wouldn't be having this discussion" TrogL May 2013 #19

2 is not provable, it's wrong Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #23

For someting to be wrong-it has to be provable doesn't it? Johonny May 2013 #25

No, absolutely not. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #28

In the process of proving something right or wrong- I.E. is it provable Johonny May 2013 #33

Huh??? hobbit709 May 2013 #20

Yours is the first truly appropriate response to the OP CBGLuthier May 2013 #24

When criticising language use, make sure not to omit apostrophes... Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #29

I do believe that my intent was clear CBGLuthier May 2013 #32

Against, of course, as is made plain in the OP - try actually reading it. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #42

Bayes requires facts and relevant data MattBaggins May 2013 #47

Then try praying instead of taking antibiotics. n/t Ian David May 2013 #26

Try reading posts instead of guessing what you think they might say. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #27

I don't think anyone seems to understand what you're trying to say. n/t Ian David May 2013 #30

As a theory I.D. Is useless as it is not falsifiable. Warren Stupidity May 2013 #35

Absolutely, but I think the point is possibly better cast in terms of predictive power. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #43

So utterly wrong alarimer May 2013 #36

Intelligent Design Does NOT automatically mean "God". What part of that simple truth do you not get? KittyWampus May 2013 #37

Uh no, ID is crypto creationism. Warren Stupidity May 2013 #41

"It therefore had to exist from the very beginning since like begets like." MattBaggins May 2013 #48

Almost all of that is nonsense, apart from the last line, which is just comedy. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #49

No it isn't. MNBrewer May 2013 #38

A key requirement for a good logical theory is that it not prove too much. struggle4progress May 2013 #39

For ignorant bible-thumping republicans, perhaps SoCalDem May 2013 #46

So, I'm guessing you didn't read the OP either? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #51

I do not need answers, I just am Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #50

Kick...nt SidDithers May 2013 #52