A standard Q&A for the LHC put up on the BBC which suddenly gets elevated into the realm of classic by the last paragraph or two. Read it before the Beeb pulls it for naughty language.
Yeah, but even there, he doesn't really explain why its total crap. I know it is, you know it is, but turning around to the intelligent design mob and going "its crap" somewhat plays into their hands - its not a good "scientific" answer that logically condemns their fallacy.
I still don't have a neat answer to "logically" explain why such an "illogical" supposition (as intelligent design) is wrong. Possibly the flying spaghetti monster is a good way, but its a bit long winded. How do you show an ID muppet just why they are wrong, in terms they will understand, and any (non scientific) observers will appreciate?
First identify their actual theory. If it's "irreducible complexity" then you can use Paley's Eye (the Blind Watchmaker argument) or the bacterial flagellae rotor precursors. If it's a statistical argument, I believe they have all been refuted. Most of the time it's actually none of these, but religion: Someone must have made it. In that case, you're out of the realms of science and into philosophy. Good luck with that one.
Whats the argument associated with bacterial flagellae rotor precursors? Or is that part of the demonstration of irreducable complexity reduced?
Its the religion/philosophy side that gets me. I hate to think of getting to the point where we say "I believe in science" to refute a "I believe in God" argument.
The bacterial flagellum has a molecular rotor - an actual rotary motor. It's really cool. The ID guys argued that this was a perfect example of irreducible complexity because the rotor's parts were purposeless. Until, that is, some biochemist fellows found instances of bacteria with only some of the rotor components serving more mundane roles as ion pumps.
"I believe" arguments are void. Science is demonstrable: it can prove itself repeatedly and independently. That's kinda the point. No belief is needed for science; no proof is needed for religion. The error, always, is in rolling the two together.
Going back the the BBC article, the author gave two points that were accessible and salient in reducing the "end of the world" woes: first, the energy of the collision being about the same as a mosquito hitting you in the face - I didn't know that - and second, that these collisions happen all the time in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit the Earth.
I think the point is that even to engage with ID believers on the presumption that their belief holds any weight whatsoever is simply to give them airtime. There has, as far as I know, never been a successful proof of ID. Their trump card (that Andy mentioned) was the flagellae rotor and that was nullified as soon as the rules were changed from 'Lets include science' to 'Lets include science, including the bits that present opposing arguments'. There has also never been an instance of any of these otherwise intelligent people being convinced of the fallacy of their arguments as a result of scientific discussion.
In short, religious argument should not be entertained in a scientific field, which ID is trying to be, any more than one should expect to be entertained if you rush into a church shouting 'He doesn't exist! You can't prove it'
They present ID to be included in a scientific field. And we can't just turn around and say "its not science, I'm not talking to you", as they just then go "AH HA! See! Your sigh-ens ain't got no answer for ma ID!"
How do we demonstrate they are talking a load of horse do do in terms that they will understand? Its not a scientific argument, its more marketing than anything else. But it bugs the hell out of me...
We have already refuted their science. Andy quoted the instance. Einstein once said, when presented with a pro-nazi leaflet entitled 100 scientists against Einstein, 'Why 100? If I was wrong, one would have been enough'. Refuting it again with the same argument does not make the proof more valid.
We can't demonstrate, on terms they are interested in, that they are talking cobblers. We have already demonstrated this very effectively using science but they are not interested in that, any more than I am interested in an arguement that says a god exists because He does. Hence not inviting them to the party if the discussion is purely related to science.
Learn to live with the bugging, because there will always be stupid people you can't influence. Thing is, science is demonstrably right. ID isn't - it's a "god of the gaps" approach, intellectually bankrupt. If an ID proponent comes up with an actual testable hypothesis, rest assured, it'll be tested.
I still don't have a neat answer to "logically" explain why such an "illogical" supposition (as intelligent design) is wrong. Possibly the flying spaghetti monster is a good way, but its a bit long winded. How do you show an ID muppet just why they are wrong, in terms they will understand, and any (non scientific) observers will appreciate?
Reply
Reply
Its the religion/philosophy side that gets me. I hate to think of getting to the point where we say "I believe in science" to refute a "I believe in God" argument.
Reply
"I believe" arguments are void. Science is demonstrable: it can prove itself repeatedly and independently. That's kinda the point. No belief is needed for science; no proof is needed for religion. The error, always, is in rolling the two together.
Going back the the BBC article, the author gave two points that were accessible and salient in reducing the "end of the world" woes: first, the energy of the collision being about the same as a mosquito hitting you in the face - I didn't know that - and second, that these collisions happen all the time in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit the Earth.
Reply
In short, religious argument should not be entertained in a scientific field, which ID is trying to be, any more than one should expect to be entertained if you rush into a church shouting 'He doesn't exist! You can't prove it'
Reply
They present ID to be included in a scientific field. And we can't just turn around and say "its not science, I'm not talking to you", as they just then go "AH HA! See! Your sigh-ens ain't got no answer for ma ID!"
How do we demonstrate they are talking a load of horse do do in terms that they will understand? Its not a scientific argument, its more marketing than anything else. But it bugs the hell out of me...
Reply
We can't demonstrate, on terms they are interested in, that they are talking cobblers. We have already demonstrated this very effectively using science but they are not interested in that, any more than I am interested in an arguement that says a god exists because He does. Hence not inviting them to the party if the discussion is purely related to science.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment