Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

The scientists are working with observational and experimental evidence.

They understand that their answers are tentative and subject to revision with the discovery of new information.

Well, then, we're talking about different things, so please keep your **** separate from my ****.

So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

“Disputes between men pertinaciously obstinate in their principles are the most irksome. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence in enforcing sophistry and falsehood and, as reasoning is not the source from whence either disputant derives his tenets, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.” (Hume)

I merely meant to point out that "science" is not above embracing non-empirical speculation as acceptable if it suits the purposes of scientists

I just don't think I can fully understand the concept without an example.

Not saying you're one of them, but the absolute "rationality" of science is a common banner waved by militant atheists. They will defend ANY claim of "science" (to reveal no weakness) when they bash "stupid Christians." It's just part of their polemical game and aids them in their pose of being intellectually superior.

Some of these "scientific realists" show every bit as much "faith," reverence, and dogma about their creed as does any Christian.

I don't know whether you've already given any examples nor do I really wish to go back through 30 pges pr more of all this to find them

Or is it speculating on the reason?

FBM wrote:

The scientists are working with observational and experimental evidence.

     On the lit side of the things (the known Universe) - they have no evidence about any Big Bang ever happening; and on the dark of the things (the unknown Universe) the 'evidence' is much more like fuzzy logic than a plausible explanation.

FBM wrote:

They understand that their answers are tentative and subject to revision with the discovery of new information.

     You are talking stochastic things just to avoid getting asleep - don't you? You don't understand anything of what the QMs is saying, do you? You don't understand five nines (99.999 %) of what the Standrad Model is saying - you are just trying to attach somehow to the status quo for the purposes of career upgrading and promotion ... and nothing else. Why don't you simply confess it - you are not interested in the truth, notwithstanding whatever it may come out to be; you are not interested in the science - all that you are interested in is career security and nothing else.

In another thread, after FBM had gratuitously brought religion into the topic, I told him:

Quote:

Not saying you're one of them, but the absolute "rationality" of science is a common banner waved by militant atheists. They will defend ANY claim of "science" (to reveal no weakness) when they bash "stupid Christians." It's just part of their polemical game and aids them in their pose of being intellectually superior.

Some of these "scientific realists" show every bit as much "faith," reverence, and dogma about their creed as does any Christian.

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-44#post-5896982

After seeing some of his comments in this thread, I'm beginning to suspect that he is "one of them."

It's the whole "all reason in on my side and my religion's (science) **** don't stink," attitude that seems to prevail.

You would be wrong.

Quote:

So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

Your (undisclosed) source, FBM.

Seems there's some kind of "gap" in our knowledge here, eh? How can we plug that gap? I know...

Undetectable dark matter, that's the ticket!

The "evidence" for it is beyond question. Well, maybe you can still ask questions, but the evidence is so strong that this unverifiable hypothesis has been generally accepted by the scientific community.

"dark matter in the gaps"

This doesn't look like something that I wrote. Are you attributing this to me?

Einstein proposed a cosmological constant to make the equations match observation

Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe that was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract.

Science needs evidence, and if it can't get any for a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis is scrapped or revised.

This thread is pitting the argument for Intelligent Design against the scientific model: "Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe."...I do know how to compare evidence-based claims with claims that are made without evidence, and that's where Intelligent Design falls flat

Herald is claiming aliens, I'm asking for evidence. He can't provide any, so I'm saying his case is weaker than that for the Standard Model. That's it.

Quote:

This doesn't look like something that I wrote. Are you attributing this to me?

No, I took it from a quote posted (you didn't say where it came from).

I disagree, it was an ad hoc addition designed to achieve a desired end (a static universe). Observations really had nothing to do with it.

So you say, but this whole "dark matter" thing is just another ad hoc "solution" to an evident problem with existing theory. It has no independent basis.

That's not a problem, in and of itself, but scientists are supposed to be skeptical about any new "theories" until some empirical verification is obtained. That is especially true of ad hoc revisions.

Beyond that, Karl Popper (and others) concluded that any proposition that could not be empirically falsified was mere "pseudo-science."

Yet it is said that the mainstream scientific community this has generally accepted this ad hoc, evidentally non-falsifiable, assertion that dark matter "exists." What's up with that? It's the gullibility and lack of critical analysis that is most suspect here. But, it saves their dogma, so, what else would you expect?

FBM, in my very first post, pointed out the distinction between "naturalism" as a methodology and as a "metaphysical ontology." You seem to be adhering to the latter.

ID, by the very nature of it's claims, cannot be confirmed or falsified by "empirical" evidence. Yet that seems to be the only evidence you're willing to allow--stacking the deck for "your side."

I don't claim ID is a "scientific theory" in the sense that it can be falsified by empirical experiment (just as dark matter can't). It ain't. But it doesn't therefore follow that there is exactly ZERO "evidence" for it. That's one reason I brought up the issue of what constitutes "evidence" and how one's answer to that question may simply be: "only that which conforms to the metaphysical beliefs I adhere to."

Please link me to it.

Observations up to that point suggested a static universe. It wasn't something he just pulled out of his imagination.

Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe that was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract.

There are efforts under way to detect dark matter and energy. I don't know where you got the idea that they are inherently undetectable and falsifiable.

It's standard procedure in epistemology.

If you know of any evidence for it, empirical or other, please bring it here

You're involved in - what it's commonly called - a wild goose chase. LOL

http://able2know.org/topic/226001-259#post-5898869

Ring a bell? You did cite your source (at the top) and I overlooked it (I always give my cites AFTER I provide the quote, so I wasn't looking in the right place)

Let me repeat it:

Quote:

Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe that was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract.

It just an ad hoc addition to GR because he thought that what he needed did not otherwise conform to the physical prerequisites. It did not "follow" (or so the thought, anyway) from his math (his theory) without just "arbitrarily" adding in his cosmological constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

As I understand it, they are looking for INDIRECT evidence of a type which COULD, but would not necessarily, be a indication that dark matter exists. The lack of such evidence could not possibly "falsify" the hypothesis.

What is (standard procedure)?

Maybe some other time. I already have, earlier in this thread. But I have no real desire to try to dissuade one from his chosen metaphysics, and I'm guessing it would be a futile attempt at "discussion."

Lack of evidence is only evidence for lack of evidence, not ultimate unfalsifiability.

There was no reason to think that the universe was anything other than static. Observations prior to Hubble suggested that it was, so Einstein was trying to make his GR fit with observation.