@farmerman,
farmerman wrote: "Critical rigor" when you collect facst on their own, the only "rigor" incolved is that which underscores the individual plate of evidence . .
As a scientific inquiry I think youd wind up being a bit "lost in the woods".
If you follow research, you get secondary data, which is presumably factual. Of course, part of critical methodological rigor is to always allow for the possibility that data/facts are misrepresented in reports. E.g. when the magnetic data from boats is represented as stripes on the sea floor, that is a projection of the data based on the theoretical assumption about the cause. I accept that explanation tentatively, but if I am being truly rigorous, I could question it and ask whether there could be some other explanation for the changing response of the magnet.
Anyway, the point is that you keep building on what you have and trying out alternative explanations to see if they make sense and whether it is possible to test them against other explanations. E.g. if you constructed an alternative hypothesis to explain the magnetic variations like that there were submarines or shipwrecks or veins of metal ore etc. then you'd have to design some test to exclude those possibilities, and that would be difficult or impossible given the depths, pressures, darkness, etc. So in many cases, you are limited by the empirical impenetrability of nature, so that leads science to rely on a lot of thought experimentation, critical reasoning, and tentative assumptions.
Quote:Noone had any idea in hell they were upending the geosynclinal theory, they were merely trying to inmprove the sensitivity of their magnetic detectors.
Ok, so they were generating facts that eventually fed into a more critical theorizing process. Even at the level of improving technology, however, there has to be theorizing to discover and analyze problems and devise and test potential solutions/improvements.
Quote:I assume youre NOT is any science field because research that breaks down because of someones word choices assumes that all along you had a preselected "theory"
Your assumption is proof that you don't apply scientific thinking to what you're trying to ascertain. If you did, you would realize that the phrase "in any scientific field" is meaningless. People can work in a field without thinking scientifically and people can work as janitors and think scientifically. Science is ultimately an approach to knowledge. Playing with beakers and chemicals in lab coats by following instructions does not a scientist make.
Quote:Religion is like that. It begins with its "Theory" and excludes any "evidence" that doesnt support its belief system. Science will discard its theoris of the evidence doesnt fit.
AHHH, the freedom to not be bound by belief.
You believe that there is freedom beyond belief? Really? Why don't you doubt that, exactly? Insufficient capacity for skepticism?
Quote:So far, all "evidence" brought up and presented by the "scientific ID researchers" have been debunked in the field , the lab, and their hypothesis.
I don't know what "scientific ID research" entails. All I point out is that there is no reason to differentiate between 'intelligent design' and evolution because the evolution of DNA codes via a process of expressing genes as functioning organisms and then their survival and reproduction determining subsequent DNA development is a mechanism for intelligent design.
Think about it in terms of AI: if a human designs a computer that can think critically and redesign itself to improve its functioning through time, it will evolve on its own. The capacity of the machine to evolve independently is built-in intelligence. The universe is governed by built-in intelligence at every level. If you don't want to call that divine intelligence, you're just denying God because it interferes with your faith in humanity as supreme.
