Re: Ool - out at first base?

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 23:25:39 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 15/12/2024 7:43 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 15:50:40 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 15/12/2024 1:31 am, Martin Harran wrote:

 
[ snip for focus]
 

Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working
hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not be
true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort to
explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can ever
be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what one is
studying is not naturally explainable."
>
That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?

>
First of all, I note that you left out the first sentence in that
quote - "Intelligent design is simply not a scientific theory" !
>
I'm not conversant with de Duve's ideas but I don't see him suggesting
that you can just jump from "not naturally explainable" to "Goddidit"
which is what you are trying to do. There are many possible reasons
why we might not be able explain something in natural ways - limits on
human intellectual competence is just one, lack of tools and equipment
is another. There is, of course, always the possibility that God did
indeed do it but if you are going to make a case for that, you have to
be able to offer some ideas about how or why he did it that way and
the strength of your argument will be directly proportional to how
tentative or how strong your ideas are. You are offering nothing so
that means your argument is worth nothing.
>

>
No, wrong. Demonstrating an existing theory to be false has no
requirement to provide and demonstrate a viable alternative*.

 
In regard to demonstrating a theory to be false, you haven't done
that, all you have done is identify areas that have not been
explained, at least not yet. There is nothing at all unusual about
that in science. Darwin's ToE was initially unable to explain how
traits and characteristics got passed on between generations; it took
Mendel to do that. In making his claims about heliocentrism, Galileo
was unable to explain tides and stellar parallax, it took a couple of
centuries to sort all that out. In neither case were the claims false.
 
You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that *unexplained* does not
equate to *wrong*.
 
In regard to a viable alternative, you have put an alternative forward
- supernatural causes - but you have provided nothing whatsoever to
support its viability. Again, you seem incapable or unwilling to grasp
that even if A is wrong,that does not automatically mean that B is
right, that B needs to stand on its own grounds. That is the
fundamental flaw in ID which is what you constantly mimic.

>
Not playing tit-for-tat, but I return a similar criticism: you seem
incapable or unwilling to grasp or maintain a coherent focus on the
content, logic and qualifications of my argument.

Content: OOL is too complicated and too many unexplained gaps to be
due to natural processes.

Logic: because of that complexity and those gaps, ideas and
explanations based on natural processes must be wrong - therefore OOL
must have been due to supernatural causes.

Have I missed anything in those two parts?

I'm not sure what qualifications you mean, I may have missed them.

>

 

>
Your arbitrary requirement that I "offer some ideas about how or why
[God] did it that way" or else I am "offering nothing so that means your
argument is worth nothing" says something about where you're coming from.
>
-----
>
* Example of a theory disproved without an alternative being offered:
>
The Caloric Theory
The caloric theory posited that heat was a fluid-like substance, called
"caloric", that flowed from hot objects to cold ones. This theory was
widely accepted because it explained certain phenomena, such as the
transfer of heat and the expansion of gases when heated.
>
The Disproof
In 1798, Benjamin Thompson (Count Rumford) conducted a groundbreaking
experiment during the boring of cannons. He observed that enormous
amounts of heat were generated by friction, seemingly without any
depletion of a material "caloric" substance. His experiments
demonstrated that heat could be produced indefinitely by mechanical
work, challenging the idea that heat was a conserved fluid.
>
However, while Rumford's findings refuted the caloric theory, a
comprehensive alternative explanation-what we now understand as heat as
energy transfer and the kinetic theory of heat-was not yet fully developed.

 
So what experiments have taken place that show OOL not to be due to
natural causes?
 
Note: [probability argument] !=experimentation.
 

The Transition Period
It wasn't until the mid-19th century, with the work of James Prescott
Joule, Hermann von Helmholtz, and others, that the modern thermodynamic
understanding of heat as a form of energy was established. Joule's
experiments in particular quantified the relationship between mechanical
work and heat, leading to the formulation of the first law of
thermodynamics (energy conservation).
>
Why This Matters
This case illustrates how science can enter a transitional phase where
an established theory is refuted,

 
I stand open to correction but I don't see anyone claiming that
current ideas on OOL are at the *established theory*; as far as I can
see, they are just possible natural explanations yet to be proven.
 

but a replacement theory has not yet
emerged. During such periods, scientific progress often relies on
accumulating experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork before a
new paradigm can be articulated.

 
So what experimental evidence and conceptual groundwork are you
offering regarding your supernatural causes paradigm?
 

The disproof of caloric theory paved
the way for the modern understanding of energy, despite the temporary
gap in explanatory frameworks.