ID advocates: Please make your case.

[wit>trope]

There is a basis, absence of evidence. In the absence of evidence of plausibility assume not.

You are not presenting a cogent argument here. First, I already presented evidence of the plausibility. It appears you did not understand the argument. There are levels of worlds already that we can discern and which are clearly accessible to us and where an observe in one world level would not be cognizant of levels above it. For example there is the world of man, the world of the ant, and the world of the bacterium and the world of the quark -- a member of each respective world would not be cognizant of the worlds above it. Thus assuming that there are no worlds above our level is silly because there is no reason to believe that there would be any direct accessible evidence for their existence since there is no direct accessible evidence for the existence of the worlds above any of the other respective worlds of ant, bacterium and quark The absence of direct evidence for something being the case is only evidence of it not being the case if one has reason to believe that if it had been the case there would be some direct accessible evidence that it was the case. For example, a long time ago there was no direct accessible evidence that atoms existed, yet this did not make the existence of atoms an unreasonable belief because there is no reason to believe that were atoms to exist that there would be -- contemporaneous to that observer -- direct accessible evidence for it

Second, you are left in the uncomfortable position of deciding which proposition is the one that requires evidence. To assume that ONLY these things exist seems to me to be the the proposition that requires the more evidence as opposed to the proposition that these things are not the only things that exist. To assert A and only A is a more restrictive assertion than A and not only A.

Why is science flawed?

My refutation of your argument just demonstrated my assertion -- not that science properly understood is flawed -- but that those who masquerade as scientists today are making arguments and building cases based on supposed evidence in a way that is unreliable due to lack of acuity and poor methodology, a methodology that excludes "a priori" anything but a naturalistic explanation.

Let me give an example. there are no scientists investigating the possibility that there are no laws of physics that "at bottom" govern the world. All the "theories of everything" have as their blind premise that all things in our world are governed by fixed laws that can be given some kind of technical (i.e. mathematical) expression. They don't consider the possibility that there are an infinite number of distinct laws. They also don't consider the possibility that there aren't any laws which operate "at bottom" at all. They don't consider the possibilty that the world is governed by angels and that the various "laws" we observe -- such as the "law of gravity" are "top level" "emergent" phenomena arising out of the "at bottom" activity of angels. You would think that finding that the "law of gravity" is not actually fully accurate would cause scientists to rethink their "a priori" assumption. But no, they just make their theory more and more complicated just like in the days when they tried to account for the earth as centre of the world by making an even more and more complicated theory with layers upon layers of epicycles. The fact of the matter is that scientists have not been able to come up with one single fixed law that is fully, completely accurate -- of course such an endeavor is impossible without a "theory of everything" -- since the various "forces" influence each other even if in some cases the influence is exceedingly small. Why are they not considering the possibility that various physical "rules of thumb" arise not out of at bottom fixed laws but rather out of at bottom social activity namely the social activity of angels (or whatever beings) -- just like how in "social science" like sociology or economics (which is math heavy) emerging phenomena is attributed to the social activity of men? Only one reason. They never study this or consider this because they have excluded it "a priori." They want to hold on to the empty shell of science that they are wishfully thinking is something that resembles the truth. There is no reason to believe that only the activities we readily discern to arise out of social activity, do so.

 

[Perfection]

You are not presenting a cogent argument here. First, I already presented evidence of the plausibility. It appears you did not understand the argument.

Very few seem to understand your arguements...

Would you be so kind as to direct me to evidence that I haven't refuted.

There are levels of worlds already that we can discern and which are clearly accessible to us and where an observe in one world level would not be cognizant of levels above it. For example there is the world of man, the world of the ant, and the world of the bacterium and the world of the quark -- a member of each respective world would not be cognizant of the worlds above it.

Ummm, that's anthropomorphising the member of each "world". You're examples aren't sentient (besides man). Your analogy is deeply flawed. If an ant or bacterium had man's intelligence, I can see no reason why they couldn't eventually transcend thier element of small, just as we can observe the greater universe from our small blue speck.

Thus assuming that there are no worlds above our level is silly because there is no reason to believe that there would be any direct accessible evidence for their existence since there is no direct accessible evidence for the existence of the worlds above any of the other respective worlds of ant, bacterium and quark

There most surely would be

The absence of direct evidence for something being the case is only evidence of it not being the case if one has reason to believe that if it had been the case there would be some direct accessible evidence that it was the case. For example, a long time ago there was no direct accessible evidence that atoms existed, yet this did not make the existence of atoms an unreasonable belief because there is no reason to believe that were atoms to exist that there would be -- contemporaneous to that observer -- direct accessible evidence for it

Yes it would be unreasonable to believe it without such knowledge. Just because by coincidence greek atomism, which was entirely unlike modern atomism, was right about small discrete units of matter doesn't mean it wasn't a fallacious unreasonable and unevidenced belief.

Second, you are left in the uncomfortable position of deciding which proposition is the one that requires evidence. To assume that ONLY these things exist seems to me to be the the proposition that requires the more evidence as opposed to the proposition that these things are not the only things that exist. To assert A and only A is a more restrictive assertion than A and not only A.

What?

I'll do a little more later, feel free to reply.

 

[wit>trope]

If an ant or bacterium had man's intelligence, I can see no reason why they couldn't eventually transcend thier element of small, just as we can observe the greater universe from our small blue speck.

You're still not understanding the argument and analogies. Our "small blue speck" wouldn't consiste of the planet earth. It would consist of both the earth and the heavens, including all the puny knowledge of it we have thus far. By constraining our world to the planet earth you are biasing the argument, especially since none of the ancients thought the planet earth was all there was to reality anyway -- anyone at all could have looked up and seen a heaven with stars, planets, etc.

So you are basically using a subtle strawman argument.

There most surely would be Yes it would be unreasonable to believe it without such knowledge. Just because by coincidence greek atomism, which was entirely unlike modern atomism, was right about small discrete units of matter doesn't mean it wasn't a fallacious unreasonable and unevidenced belief.

I don't know what's more funny, your harsh criticism of Greek atomism or Pilates ridicule of Aristotle and or his apparent disdain for Tolkein.

 

[Perfection]

Let me give an example. there are no scientists investigating the possibility that there are no laws of physics that "at bottom" govern the world.

How the heck would one go about scientifically investigating that?

All the "theories of everything" have as their blind premise that all things in our world are governed by fixed laws that can be given some kind of technical (i.e. mathematical) expression.

How is that blind? There is strong evidence that the laws are static. Plus those that research candidate TOEs (which really only is string theory) most often seperate the idea of it being fundamental law from the experimental processes.

They don't consider the possibility that there are an infinite number of distinct laws.

How can one scientifically investigate that possibility?

They also don't consider the possibility that there aren't any laws which operate "at bottom" at all.

Yes they do, but it's hardly scientifically investigatable

They don't consider the possibilty that the world is governed by angels and that the various "laws" we observe -- such as the "law of gravity" are "top level" "emergent" phenomena arising out of the "at bottom" activity of angels.

Do they have a reason to give it more then a passing glance? Scientists have limited time and energy, they're not gonna research every lame idea you pull out of your butt. Maybe if you had say a reason why it could explain things better you'd get some attention

You would think that finding that the "law of gravity" is not actually fully accurate would cause scientists to rethink their "a priori" assumption.

They see a pattern in the nature of quantum particles and they are following

But no, they just make their theory more and more complicated just like in the days when they tried to account for the earth as centre of the world by making an even more and more complicated theory with layers upon layers of epicycles.

The theory (I believe you are refering to String Theory) is actually less complex, it's just the mathematics of its emergent properties is. Plus it explains more.

The fact of the matter is that scientists have not been able to come up with one single fixed law that is fully, completely accurate -- of course such an endeavor is impossible without a "theory of everything" -- since the various "forces" influence each other even if in some cases the influence is exceedingly small.

So? Science is incomplete.

Why are they not considering the possibility that various physical "rules of thumb" arise not out of at bottom fixed laws but rather out of at bottom social activity namely the social activity of angels (or whatever beings) -- just like how in "social science" like sociology or economics (which is math heavy) emerging phenomena is attributed to the social activity of men? Only one reason. They never study this or consider this because they have excluded it "a priori."

Or maybe it's because it makes little sense, adds a whole new level of "angel dynamics" without a lick of evidence to support it, has no experimental process

They want to hold on to the empty shell of science that they are wishfully thinking is something that resembles the truth.

Empty shell of science! Pardon me, but I find that a tad absurd. We are sorrounded every day by instruments built using these scientific theories. They've demonstrated the theories to work reliably. Yes they have minor glitches, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to try to fix the glitches, then to throw up our hands abandon everything!

There is no reason to believe that only the activities we readily discern to arise out of social activity, do so.

The problem is you're saying that they might do so without a lick of reason why.

That's the big problem with your arguement, you give univestigatable claims and don't give any specefics about what they explain. I must say that debating you is a lot like debating Behe. A whole lot of attacking of the scientific community, and not a smidge of testibility.

You're a good showman but a poor scientist.

 

[Perfection]

You're still not understanding the argument and analogies. Our "small blue speck" wouldn't consiste of the planet earth. It would consist of both the earth and the heavens, including all the puny knowledge of it we have thus far. By constraining our world to the planet earth you are biasing the argument, especially since none of the ancients thought the planet earth was all there was to reality anyway -- anyone at all could have looked up and seen a heaven with stars, planets, etc.

And no ant could've looked up an seen a human?

So you are basically using a subtle strawman argument.

Well, I'm obviously not getting what the heck you are trying to say. It seems you are arguing that ants (if sentient) wouldn't be able to inverstigate humans, but they can. Plus if we can't investigate something above us. Why bother?

I don't know what's more funny, your harsh criticism of Greek atomism or Pilates ridicule of Aristotle and or his apparent disdain for Tolkein.

Feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong, and show that it was a good assumption based on no physical evidence.

 

[Atlas14]

Cierdan, I almost lost track of the point you are actually trying to prove. Had it not been for the thread title, I would look at everything you have posted so far and would get a massive head-ache because of how much rambling, and literally off-topic, irrelevant examples you have talked about. Your "what-if" arguments haven't proved anything to anyone yet, and they have yet to even make the least bit of sense.

At least answer me this: What is your motivation for believing in ID? Is it religious or non-religious? Please, let us know of your motivation for believing in this ID nonsense. It would not ony help us direct our posts better but it will clear or verify some of my assumptions