I don’t know why you okes keep feeding the troll, you’re just giving yourselves blood pressure without any prospect of ever getting through to it.
Oh puhlease, going by the second post you might as well claim ID is science by saying (it is not btw):
ID is science. They are not claiming anything. They are searching. If they find something others (independent scientists) will have a look.
Like ID, SETI has not found anything and you might as wlll claim both are an ongoing experimental search.
Sheesh mate, what kind of show are you running here? Skeptics r us from ignorance?
Oh fuck off you numb cunt. Please illustrate how the fuck you get that I am not calm and collective? Jesus Christ but you are willfully obtuse.
Oreally? Where is the evidence of ID? Nothing. So it is an ongoing search as well... for them anyway.The evidence for life is right here on this planet. Looking for it elsewhere makes logical sense. Until we find it had and only could, originate here. The universe is a BIG place.
They spell out how they are trying to do it, it sadly makes it no more scientific than ID. That you don't get that I paraphrased your assertion that SETI uses scientific methods and actually told you that neither use a proper scientific method reflects a bit bad on your comprehension skills.Epic Fail. The fist case of a black pot calling a transparent kettle black. ::)
Now kindly provide at least an argument for SETI being a science without it being just another argument from ignorance.I have done so. Others have done so. Any reading of this thread will do it for anyone with half a brain.
Or at least answer the following questions: Nick333, just answer the simple question and stop trying to evade it. 1) Can SETI yield conclusive evidence of intelligence without independent evidence of the intelligent beings? How? 1) Can Intelligent Design yield conclusive evidence of design (any design) without independent evidence of the intelligent beings (natural or supernatural)? How?If a signal is detected and decoded providing detailed historical and biological data, I'd find it pretty convincing. I'd like to have it backed up with further research and actually sending a probe out there. Now you answer for ID!! third time is the charm!
Neither has any evidence, and neither is scientific.One is an ongoing scientific experiment and the other evidenceless gobbledygook.
So. That magic third time. How are ID’ers ‘experimenting’??? SETI uses instruments to look and interpret signals. What are ID’ers doing exactly?
Damn you really are thick…
Science has no method to evaluate and determine whether or not something is the result of intelligence or not without independent evidence of the intelligent beings. To claim otherwise is just pure ignorance. Using fancy machines and gobbledygook terms such as complex specified information and the nebulous Drake equation or “ooh look, I don’t think this is natural” does not mean you are doing science. Science needs some independent information about the designers before it can use an intelligent cause as part of an explanation.
Sadly not a single one here has provided any argument to even consider SETI as a science.
Pretty convincing of what? That the decoding software can generate apparent signs of biological data? Show the calculations, show at least how you are going to eliminate false positives before jumping and saying…“intelligence”…
Actually both are evidenceless gobbledygook.
Ooo, wow, big instruments to intrpret signals. IDiots also have big sounding words like specified complexity and irreducible complexity etc…
SETI is not and cannot be science because:
- SETI does not precisely and rigourously define “intelligence”. If you can’t even properly define the thing that you are looking for then you are already in trouble. Same with the IDiots.
- SETI attempts to infer intelligence without having an independent base of knowledge about the proposed intelligent beings. Like I said, science has no method to evaluate and determine whether or not something is the result of intelligence or not without independent evidence of the intelligent beings.
- SETI appeals to discontinuities and then try to sneak intelligence into the discontnuity. E.g.
Seth Shostak: “Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes”
Steven Novella: “finding an anomaly that cannot be explained by known natural processes,”
SETI (as well as ID) appeal to ignorance (apparent discontinuities). - SETI claims draw from analogy. E.g.
Steven Novella: “The second, however, is positive – finding that the signal has markers of technological intelligence, as best as we can infer from our solitary self-example.”
Appeals to our limited experience of intelligence.
IDers might claim they are doing science like SETI, but neither amounts to any form of science.
True, but SETI goes about it in a decidedly scientific way, while ID’s methods can best be described as pseudoscience.
How so? Where is the peer-review? Do expand on this if you don’t mind. Just how do they think they are going to infer intelligence without having an independent base of knowledge about the proposed intelligent beings?
Where is their definition of intelligence (the thing they are looking for)?
They might sound a bit more “sciency”, that does not make it any less of a pseudoscience though.
Coming from a complete bungling moron, this is almost a compliment…
Science has no method to evaluate and determine whether or not something is the result of intelligence or not without independent evidence of the intelligent beings. To claim otherwise is just pure ignorance. Using fancy machines and gobbledygook terms such as complex specified information and the nebulous Drake equation or "ooh look, I don't think this is natural" does not mean you are doing science. Science needs some independent information about the designers before it can use an intelligent cause as part of an explanation.Part of the hypothesis would be that should communication be established or a signal intercepted that it contains explanatory data. If the signal we decode explain how the signal is being produced, why and by whom, you'll have it all in a nutshell. Then you can continue to deny the evidence of course but that would be just you.
We’d have a starting point to work with. No one is saying that just the reception of a signal would be irrevocable proof - that is your own misunderstanding and straw man.
Sadly not a single one here has provided any argument to even consider SETI as a science.That you miss it with it being a fact of the history of this thread for any and all to read at their leisure does not bode well for this baseless assertion.
Pretty convincing of what? That the decoding software can generate apparent signs of biological data? Show the calculations, show at least how you are going to eliminate false positives before jumping and saying..."intelligence"...Not my field at all. I'll leave that to the peer review process. But if we decode a signal which clearly indicates beings and how they came about - say they explain evolution and how their species came to be, I'd find it compelling.
A little like finding a written note in a bottle - evidence that someone, somewhere put it in. These are known quantities btw, we as human can send and decipher signals for instance.
Now the forth time: How does ID’ers do experiments to substantiate their a priori assumptions?
That you evade this so spectacularly does not reflect well on you.
Actually both are evidenceless gobbledygook.Indeed not true and you have been shown why.
Ooo, wow, big instruments to intrpret signals. IDiots also have big sounding words like specified complexity and irreducible complexity etc...No signal having been found, the point is moot. It is an ongoing scientific experiment, how daft that you cannot fathom this. Perhaps it is too simple for your esteemed "intellect"??
SETI is not and cannot be science because: 1) SETI does not precisely and rigourously define “intelligence”. If you can't even properly define the thing that you are looking for then you are already in trouble. Same with the IDiots. 2) SETI attempts to infer intelligence without having an independent base of knowledge about the proposed intelligent beings. Like I said, science has no method to evaluate and determine whether or not something is the result of intelligence or not without independent evidence of the intelligent beings. 3) SETI appeals to discontinuities and then try to sneak intelligence into the discontnuity. E.g. Seth Shostak: “Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes” Steven Novella: “finding an anomaly that cannot be explained by known natural processes,” SETI (as well as ID) appeal to ignorance (apparent discontinuities). 4) SETI claims draw from analogy. E.g. Steven Novella: “The second, however, is positive – finding that the signal has markers of technological intelligence, as best as we can infer from our solitary self-example.” Appeals to our limited experience of intelligence.IDers might claim they are doing science like SETI, but neither amounts to any form of sciemce.
- We are looking for beings capable of sending out signals with the expressive purpose of communicating.
2)They are looking for communication signals. You are putting the cart before the horse here. Wait until they find a signal we can work with and see how it goes. Unlike ID they do not say: “There are intelligence and we will do anything in out power to prove it, all our data will be manipulated to this intent”
3)Prove this. Where has SETI done this?
4)Prove this. Where has SETI done this?
You are making a category error here that has been carefully explained to you. ID says “we know and we will do anything to prove it, including dumb arguments from ignorance” and SETI is saying “Intelligence exist here on earth, lets see if we can find something out there”
After all that waffle, misrepresentation and straw men, you still can’t provide a single means of scientifically inferring intelligence without having an independent base of knowledge about the proposed intelligent beings.
Neither you, nor SETI, have defined “intelligence”.
Look, if you can’t even recognise and argument from analogy (like your appeal to them sending out signals like we do) or discontinuity (like Seth Shostak: “Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes”) or ignorance (Steven Novella: “finding an anomaly that cannot be explained by known natural processes,”) then you really should not tell others they are morons. It is just plain sad…
And your cute questions out of ignorance (four friggin times) I am sorry to say just betrays your total idiocy and complete lack of the word “paraphrasing”. I don’t think IDers do experiments, i am merely pointing out that IDers can argue that they are in fact doing it like SETI does. Try and fit this into you dense head that has no doubt been negatively affected by alcohol and drug abuse.
Now for the last time, an IDiot can argue if he wants that he is doing science just like SETI does. PS: I am not saying they are doing science and experimentation, i am just saying they can argue that.:
SETI:
If SETI decodes a signal which clearly indicates beings and how they came about - say they explain evolution and how their species came to be, I’d find it compelling. A little like finding a written note in a bottle - evidence that someone, somewhere put it in.
ID:
If we discover an irreducible complex of particles that clearly points to it being the result of intelligence - say a code that codes for a language and the language clearly describes how to design life, they would find it compelling too. Also like finding a written note in maize of particles, written by someone and somewhere.
A little like finding a written note in a bottle - evidence that someone, somewhere put it in.
Anyone here going to SITP tonight or next week?
http://forum.skeptic.za.org/highlights-and-news/johannesburg-sitp-for-january/
IDers might as well claim it is an ongoing process of discovery and experimentation at refining their methods just like SETI. Sorry, does not make it science.
Hehe, I’ll make an effort to fly there if Captainklingon comes with his Star Trek outfit.
That signal, that oh so elusive signal. No one has claimed there are intelligent beings sending signals.
Neither you, nor SETI, have defined “intelligence”.Beings able to send out a signal we can decode and understand. I hate repeating myself like this but these daft claims that no one has answered you or presented arguments defeating your tenuous position so grates on me.
Look, if you can't even recognise and argument from analogy (like your appeal to them sending out signals like we do) or discontinuity (like Seth Shostak: “Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes”) or ignorance (Steven Novella: “finding an anomaly that cannot be explained by known natural processes,”) then you really should not tell others they are morons. It is just plain sad....When it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may very well be a duck...
And your cute questions out of ignorance (four friggin times) I am sorry to say just betrays your total idiocy and complete lack of the word "paraphrasing". I don't think IDers do experiments, i am merely pointing out that IDers can argue that they are in fact doing it like SETI does. Try and fit this into you dense head that has no doubt been negatively affected by alcohol and drug abuse.Oh you poor fucking deluded idiot child. You answer yourself after all this??
Now for the last time, an IDiot can argue if he wants that he is doing science just like SETI does. PS: I am not saying they are doing science and experimentation, i am just saying they can argue that.:SETI:
If SETI decodes a signal which clearly indicates beings and how they came about - say they explain evolution and how their species came to be, I’d find it compelling. A little like finding a written note in a bottle - evidence that someone, somewhere put it in.ID:
If we discover an irreducible complex of particles that clearly points to it being the result of intelligence - say a code that codes for a language and the language clearly describes how to design life, they would find it compelling too. Also like finding a written note in maize of particles, written by someone and somewhere.
ID - we’ll wait for God to show us the way.
SETI - we’ll keep on looking for those signals and perhaps send out a few of our own. At least we are doing something and not twiddling our fucking thumbs waiting on a miracle.
Thank you for having defeated your own “argument” so very nicely with this last post of yours. Which may have been why you struggled so long to answer my “cute question” methinks?
Now here is my prediction that you are still to dumb to actually follow it…
Anyone here going to SITP tonight or next week?And I so need a beer right about now....
That is exactly the point you dumb sschmuck. You can’t claim it is intelligent “anything” unless you have independent knowledge about the proposed intelligent “somethings”.
Again just an argument from analogy and you are completely oblivious to that fact.
Oh you poor deluded idiot moron. You still don’t get it do you? Read again, this time try to follow the paraphrasing…
Yeah well if you build and burn straw men like these, don’t expect me to think you are any less of a complete buffoon.
Gee, my argument is SETI is pseudoscience based on 3 things:
- Science has no method to evaluate and determine whether or not something is the result of intelligence or not without independent evidence of the intelligent beings (or whatever you want to call it).
- SETI does not even provide a clear definition of inetlligence.
- It is an argument from ignorance by appealing to discontinuities and analogies.
They still do not properly define what they are looking for and there is no method to detect intelligence without independent evidence of the intelligent beings (or anything else). And still all you can provide are arguments from analogy, ignorance and appeals to discontinuities…
Without meaning to invite a facetious answer (which history and reasonable inference make highly probable), the sum of all of the replies in this thread given to Mechanist’s dreadfully dreary droning drone about “independent evidence of intelligent beings” do, in fact, provide an answer to that very quibble: How does he know – and conclusively so – that, without said “independent evidence of intelligent beings,” those answers are not the produce of an elaborate “illusion of intelligence” or “chance, necessity or evolution?” How can he conclusively know that he’s not at the receiving end of an elaboration of the very factors he raises as objections to SETI? The fact is, he doesn’t, not conclusively. He can only infer, with increasing certainty, from what is, at bottom, no more than a Turing Test. ID proposes no Turing Test. SETI does.
The underlying crux is that while we may not be able to give a precise, 100% satisfactory functional definition of “intelligence,” that does not mean that it does not possess easily recognisable and testable properties. There are pears that appear indistinguishable from apples but that does not prevent us from examining them closely to decide which of those a given specimen is. Even less does it negate the existence of both classes of fruit.
I agree fully but at the expense of failing my Turing Test…
'Luthon64
And the hypothesis is that if beings are on the same “level” as us, they can demonstrate it. If they can’t then we have established nothing. How do you miss this point time and time again?
How will we tell other intelligent beings what we are? Reverse that for a second if you are able to…
Again just an argument from analogy and you are completely oblivious to that fact.It is a very apt analogy because it is based on specific, real world examples: That of human beings capable of sending and receiving signals and being curious about the natural world and looking to expand our knowledge.
poor deluded idiot moron. You still don't get it do you? Read again, this time try to follow the paraphrasing...Are you incapable of being original? Ever? Is that where your problem lies? I was the one who explained to you "paraphrasing" the last time you used it incorrectly. I have explained why it fails here. You are comparing different things and getting skewed results. The mistake is yours.
Well if you build and burn straw men like these, don't expect me to think you are any less of a complete buffoon.Please illustrate the straw man. For a clever jelly bean such as yourself it shouldn't be too hard a task eh?
Gee my argument is SETI is pseudoscience based on 3 things: 1) Science has no method to evaluate and determine whether or not something is the result of intelligence or not without independent evidence of the intelligent beings (or whatever you want to call it). 2) SETI does not even provide a clear definition of inetlligence. 3) It is an argument from ignorance by appealing to discontinuities and analogies.They still do not properly define what they are looking for and there is no method to detect intelligence without independent evidence of the intelligent beings (or anything else). And still all you can provide are arguments from analogy, ignorance and appeals to discontinuities…
They are looking for signals we can work with. Surely you cannot be this dumb? Surely? All of your “arguments” have been blown out of the water and shown to be nothing but bland, uninspiring waffle and the “connection” with ID has been shown for the disastrous, feeble mind fart that it is.
You are left with nothing except your own misunderstanding. Congratulations sport, about par for this particular course.
Ah, there’s no point in getting one’s blood pressure up about the Teleo-Mechanical-Phronetic one! It can be quite funny watching his blood pressure on the up-and-up though - his English goes to pieces LOL!
Nevertheless I do think there is some kind of duty to respond to ID bullshitters. One is obviously never going to budge them from their views, but there are many others who read these posts. One of the insidious, dishonest aims of the ID Wedge Strategy and the ID Teach the Controversy campaign is to obfuscate the differences between religious pseudo-science and real science, thereby playing on Joe Public’s sense of fair play so as to create the impression that both are valid, that both “have their place”. That is exactly what is playing out in Teleo-Mechanical-Phronesis’ posts and threads.
If some zealous clapper comes onto a forum such as this, posting screeds of biblical homilies, he/she is going to be easily dismissed as a nutter. ID’s campaigns are way more subtle, generally, and are therefore far more dangerous.
Bollocks, mate, and here’s why:
You IDiot/cretinist fruitcakes need to be exposed at every chance. For the future good of humanity because magical thinking leaves us all fucked.
Now please, please, please dare deny that your IDiot/cretinist agenda is irrelevant to your argument. I mean if SETI is just like ID and SETI is science, then ID must be science too, right? That’s your plan, isn’t it?
Doing a bit of the nite owl thing I actually ran a search and discovered the following:
We who know mechie, knows he is a Mike Gene fan. (don’t worry too much about this interloper, he is of little consequence)
Searching for SETI and ID I got telic thoughts as a hit. A well known haunt for the mechster. And viola! All his arguments in a nutshell. The boy is nothing if not unoriginal!
Which is why his every ‘argument’ is suspect. Quite the brilliant copy and paster, but zero capacity to back it up. Currently as of 00:30 of this post, there is not a single source for these ‘arguments’ he has presented in this thread. Were we to assume they were his own? Some may frown on this blatant plagiarism.
Stealing other’s arguments and selling them as your own is a no-no, mechie. Bad mechie.
Then again the argument is 5 friggen years old!! And now he lays it at our door. :’(
Luckily I also got PZ’s link over at panda’s and here is another. And then one from eskeptic.
The counter to this ridiculous assertions has been pretty much along what members here have been telling mechanist.
A five year old argument and he can do no better with it. (wtf!!)
Do I detect a smidgen of PWNAGE!!!?
Nice one, Cyghost.
Jip, great post cyghost! ;D