Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Teleologist]

James Bond the 3rd:

Inferences arise only in cases where the evidence is circumstantial, but overwhelming. When the evidence is direct then there is no need for inferences.

When evidence is direct you have proof. Provide some references where it is claimed that an inference must be based on overwhelming evidence.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

When evidence is direct you have proof. Provide some references where it is claimed that an inference must be based on overwhelming evidence.

Not all proofs are direct. When evidence is direct you have a direct proof.

This post by z10 answers your question pretty well:

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Darwin's theory was pure inference...

A PRIMER ON INFERENCE

Inference is defined as the attempt to generalize on the basis of limited information. Information is always limited because it is impractical, in terms of time and cost, to obtain total knowledge about everything. If everything were known, there would be no need for inference. Since science does not claim to know everything, inference is behind all science, except in those few cases where everything is known about a whole population. It is important to note, also, that inference underlies most thinking, even the unscientific type. In this way, scientific inference is not unlike common sense. What distinguishes scientific inference is that the process is made explicit and follows certain rules, which are the subjects of this lecture.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/308/308lect01.htm

A scientific inference must be based on overwhelming evidence, because we never know everything. Only when the sample size is large enough, we can reduce the probability of the error and have the confidence to say that our inference is correct.

OTOH, creation/ID does not need overwhelming evidence (or any evidence for that matter). There is no logical or critical thinking involved. It's based purely on faith.

 

[2cents]

and why is that? cause there is not even a iota of evidence of design...

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"OTOH, creation/ID does not need overwhelming evidence (or any evidence for that matter). There is no logical or critical thinking involved. It's based purely on faith."

Oh, the same appears to be true of the ignorant chance assumption camp...pure faith, no critical thinking involved.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Not all proofs are direct. When evidence is direct you have a direct proof.

This post by z10 answers your question pretty well:


A scientific inference must be based on overwhelming evidence, because we never know everything. Only when the sample size is large enough, we can reduce the probability of the error and have the confidence to say that our inference is correct.

OTOH, creation/ID does not need overwhelming evidence (or any evidence for that matter). There is no logical or critical thinking involved. It's based purely on faith.

 

[2cents]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"OTOH, creation/ID does not need overwhelming evidence (or any evidence for that matter). There is no logical or critical thinking involved. It's based purely on faith."

Oh, the same appears to be true of the ignorant chance assumption camp...pure faith, no critical thinking involved.

"appears", as you so aptly say my deluded friend...

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond 3rd:

A scientific inference must be based on overwhelming evidence, because we never know everything.

Show me a reference that says inference is based on overwhelming evidence. Show me a reference that says inference is the same as proof. If you look up synonyms for inference you won't find proof listed. Nor will you find inference listed as a synonym for proof.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

Show me a reference that says inference is based on overwhelming evidence. Show me a reference that says inference is the same as proof. If you look up synonyms for inference you won't find proof listed. Nor will you find inference listed as a synonym for proof.

What, you didn't even read z10's post?

Here's the link again (copied from z10):
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/308/308lect01.htm
A PRIMER ON INFERENCE

"In the end, there are usually more correlates than causes, and one cannot control everything. Causality is always an inference. This particular type of relationship must be inferred from the observed information, and then related back to known information. Inference demonstrates itself in hypothesizing, sampling, designing, and interpreting. It is the basis for scientific generalization, especially those having to do with the explanation of causality. It is never the final proof, but because final proof is itself never possible, inference is the best substitute. It enables ways to advance science, debunk mistaken beliefs, and is always mindful of its own limitations. Certain safeguards are built into the process which protect against unwarranted generalizations. The process of generalizing in an explicit and scientific manner is inference." (emphasis in the original text)

Repeat: "because final proof is itself never possible, inference is the best substitute."

From the part that discusses sampling (not quoted here), you can understand why the evidence needs to be overwhelming. You want to minimize spurious variables.

 

[jem]

james bone wrote to me.
________
You're still misrepresenting others. I have repeatedly pointed out that the appearance of design (to humans who are always seeking patterns) is universally accepted by scientists. But the appearance of design is by no means "inference" of design. You deliberately confuse the two to mislead people.
_____________________

Listen dipshit stop telling me I misrepresented these people. I have given you their quotes. Tell me how using Prof Susskinds quote in his book in which he quotes Davies, Greenstreet and hoyle saying the universe looks designed is a misrepresentation.


How did I misrepresent that.

It appears you must admit you were a wrong again.


here are quotes-

Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.


Now first of all when i first quoted these guys months ago - I doubt I even employed the word inference. So I had not misrepresented their positions.



Secondly - when I recently used the word inference....

I had just given you the dictionary.com definition. I had just argued that Teleologist used the word properly. Then i used the word inference twice. It would clear to any reader I was not adopting your restricted definition. - so i was not misrepresenting these scientists.

And finally while I know i used the word properly according to the dictionary, what is your argument that these scientists did not make an inference.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

james bone wrote to me.
________
You're still misrepresenting others. I have repeatedly pointed out that the appearance of design (to humans who are always seeking patterns) is universally accepted by scientists. But the appearance of design is by no means "inference" of design. You deliberately confuse the two to mislead people.
_____________________

Listen dipshit stop telling me I misrepresented these people. I have given you their quotes. Tell me how using Prof Susskinds quote in his book in which he quotes Davies, Greenstreet and hoyle saying the universe looks designed is a misrepresentation.


How did I misrepresent that.

It appears you must admit you were a wrong again.


here are quotes-

Astronomer Paul Davies has said that the evidence for design is overwhelming.

Astronomer George Greenstein says: AS we survey the evidence, the througt insistently arises that some supernatural ageny or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that sudenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon proof of the existence of a Supreme Being. Was it God who stepped in and so providently create the cosmos for our benefit.

Professor Sir Fred Hoyle says that it looks as if a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.


Now first of all when i first quoted these guys months ago - I doubt I even employed the word inference. So I had not misrepresented their positions.



Secondly - when I recently used the word inference....

I had just given you the dictionary.com definition. I had just argued that Teleologist used the word properly. Then i used the word inference twice. It would clear to any reader I was not adopting your restricted definition. - so i was not misrepresenting these scientists.

And finally while I know i used the word properly according to the dictionary, what is your argument that these scientists did not make an inference.

You know you're losing an argument when you resort to swearing...

I don't have time to refute the same discredited claims you made again. Just a simple thing. If you say that "these scientists" made an inference of design based on overwhelming evidence, show us the evidence. After thousands of posts, we have yet to see a shred of evidence from which design can be inferred.

FYI, it's not my definition. Read the post by z10 where he gave a link titled "A primer on inference." It explains very clearly what inference means in science. The definition you're using is not appropriate.

BTW, you really need to learn how to use a spellchecker. If you misspell the same words over and over again, you can't blame it on typos.

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You know you're losing an argument when you resort to swearing...

I don't have time to refute the same discredited claims you made again. Just a simple thing. If you say that "these scientists" made an inference of design based on overwhelming evidence, show us the evidence. After thousands of posts, we have yet to see a shred of evidence from which design can be inferred.

FYI, it's not my definition. Read the post by z10 where he gave a link titled "A primer on inference." It explains very clearly what inference means in science. The definition you're using is not appropriate.

BTW, you really need to learn how to use a spellchecker. If you misspell the same words over and over again, you can't blame it on typos.

The statements made by the quoted scientists have never been discredited. For stating they were you will continue to hold the title of dipshit.

You have neither proven the quotes to be false, or even proven how their statements can be improper inferences according to your standards.

You will never prove the former and you might have to try quite hard to even argue the later. Basically you would be indicting their credibility as top scientists. Which you know you can't do. Presumably, scientists of their magnitude and quality do not make improper inferences. Which is an inference you can draw from the statement by Professor Susskind that they know "good science".

good day.