New "proof" against ID.

[Silicon]

I may be taking the "proof" idea a bit too far, since in some senses ID is unfalsifiable.

By Proof, I mean a simple factoid to convince fence-sitters. Something that can be brought up in Kansas and anywhere else where people are debating teaching evolution vs. ID.


Convince the person in question that ID is not an intellectual movement, it is a political movement. We know this to be the case, but as ID proponents cast themselves, ID is a theory "growing in popularity", they try and convince people that more and more experts are signing on to this amazing new discovery that will inevitably win out, were it not for those meddling few dogmatic scientist/athiest/communists left.


So here's the proof (and where I need an expert to find the actual data I need).

Here's what you say to a fence-sitter:

"The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis is a political movement, not a scientific field. This is obvious when you look at the number of lawyers the ID movement employs. It seems a pretty pathetic "science" to me where they have 50 lawyers for every one researcher. They got more lawyers than they have scientists. Does that sound like a science to you? It sure doesn't to me. Are they trying to prove their hypotheses, or are they just fighting it out in court with a pack of high-priced lawyers? Isn't it obvious that they don't have any science at all? But they sure got lawyers."



(I made up the ratio. Anyone know how many actual researchers are currently working on ID, vs how many lawyers are currently engaged by the movement in various courts and school-boards?)

[Silicon]

Not to say that my idea was new. But new to me.

I do think it's the shortest-hand checkmate against ID that has occurred to me. It doesn't mess with scientific arguments that may or may not be over the head of the listener. It doesn't speak to the fallibility or infalibility of the Bible. It merely looks at the situation and calls them on it.

It's a one-round knockout. It's the kind of factoid you'd bring to bear on some Shermer/Hovindesque on-stage debate.

It's simple. I'd just stand up on stage and hammer at it and it alone.

[UserGoogol]

Feh. It's trivial to counter-argue. Just say that although ID is a scientific movement and a very good one, it is constantly under attack by the secularist Evolutionary cabal, and as such, they need to maintain a thorough supply of lawyers to protect themselves.

Complete nonsense of course, but still, there you go.

[Silicon]

Okay, sorry to keep replying to myself here.



But the more I think about this, the more I think it's a great idea.

Let's just HAMMER them on it. At every debate, keep bringing it up. Over and over, the lawyer vs scientist ratio.

Bring it up with number after number, factoid after factoid. Goad them.

"Okay, if you're so convinced it's a great discovery, how come you don't have more scientists working on it? Doesn't sound like you have a lot of faith in it."

Get them to spend less of their money on lawyers (good) and spend more of it on the black hole of useless research that goes nowhere and wins them nothing.

Also hammer them on "PR" costs. Publishing books, websites, tracts, speaking engagements etc. Call all that PR. Get them on the money they spend on PR vs. Research. "Seems to me if it was an actual science, you'd spend more on the research than you do on the PR machine."

Then get them on Time. "Wow, you spend X months of the year travelling the country and speaking at churches. How do you ever find time for your research? Or do you ever DO any research? Or do you just go around the country lining your pockets with hefty speakers fees?"

[bPer]

Originally posted by Silicon
(I made up the ratio. Anyone know how many actual researchers are currently working on ID, vs how many lawyers are currently engaged by the movement in various courts and school-boards?) Um, maybe the more mathematically-knowledgable can set me straight on this, but I don't think you can have a ratio if one side of the ratio is zero. :D

βPer

[SezMe]

Originally posted by bPer
Um, maybe the more mathematically-knowledgable can set me straight on this, but I don't think you can have a ratio if one side of the ratio is zero. :D

βPer
Well, to nit-pick, this is not true. 0/1 is a perfectly valid ratio.

[bPer]

Originally posted by SezMe
Well, to nit-pick, this is not true. 0/1 is a perfectly valid ratio.
Well, yes, and so is 1:0. I guess I was wondering if they are considered mathematically meaningful, given that 0:1 = 0:2 = ... = 0:<FONT FACE="Symbol">¥</FONT>.

&beta;Per

[Bikewer]

One argument you might use against proponents of ID is to ask them to furnish proof that this is the only universe.

Since we don't know the length of "time" (as in-Eternity) or the extent of "space", there's no reason to assume that universe is singular. It may be one of an essentially endless series, or exist at the same time as any number of other universes.
If this were the case, then all the other possible variations of the universal constants may have been "tried" at one time or another, and we're just lucky this one turned out the way it did.
There's as much evidence for this notion as there is for ID....

[SezMe]

Originally posted by bPer
Well, yes, and so is 1:0. I guess I was wondering if they are considered mathematically meaningful, given that 0:1 = 0:2 = ... = 0:<FONT FACE="Symbol">¥</FONT>.

&beta;Per
I thought of that after my post so, to nit-pick my nit-pick, I was wrong. But we are both guilty of an egrgious case of highjacking so I with draw my original point. :)

[csense]

Originally posted by Silicon


Here's what you say to a fence-sitter:

"The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis is a political movement, not a scientific field. This is obvious when you look at the number of lawyers the ID movement employs. It seems a pretty pathetic "science" to me where they have 50 lawyers for every one researcher. They got more lawyers than they have scientists. Does that sound like a science to you? It sure doesn't to me. Are they trying to prove their hypotheses, or are they just fighting it out in court with a pack of high-priced lawyers? Isn't it obvious that they don't have any science at all? But they sure got lawyers."

Considering that you're not making a scientific (empirical) or philosophical (logical) argument, then it seems to me that you're appeal to the fence sitter is also one of politics.

Should I now, according to your reasoning, cast a suspicious eye toward evolution proportionally?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by csense
Considering that you're not making a scientific (empirical) or philosophical (logical) argument, then it seems to me that you're appeal to the fence sitter is also one of politics.

Should I now, according to your reasoning, cast a suspicious eye toward evolution proportionally?

Did you miss the main tenant of my reasoning? The proportion of scientists to lawyers engaged by the movement.

The idea is the PROPORTION of politcal battlers to actual people doing research.



Apply it to evolution proponents, what's the scientist to lawyer ratio? Probably 10000 to 1.

Apply it to ID proponents, scientists to lawyers, it's probably 1 to 100.

My reasoning is sound.

[balrog666]

Originally posted by Silicon
Anyone know how many actual researchers are currently working on ID, vs how many lawyers are currently engaged by the movement in various courts and school-boards?)

Zero.



And too many.

[csense]

Originally posted by Silicon
Did you miss the main tenant of my reasoning? The proportion of scientists to lawyers engaged by the movement.

The idea is the PROPORTION of politcal battlers to actual people doing research.

Apply it to evolution proponents, what's the scientist to lawyer ratio? Probably 10000 to 1.

Apply it to ID proponents, scientists to lawyers, it's probably 1 to 100.

My reasoning is sound.

Your reasoning is sound from a political point of view, which doesn't really say much for your argument.

Even if what you propose is true, it says nothing as to the validity of either evolution or intelligent design.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by csense
Even if what you propose is true, it says nothing as to the validity of either evolution or intelligent design.


You have an uncanny grasp of the obvious.


Please read my first post again. I've already addressed that. I've said that I don't mean a scientific proof, or a logical proof. I mean an argumentive "proof". I defined the word "proof" in my first post as "A simple factiod to convince fence-sitters."


Jeeze, send you to Kansas and we'd lose the whole thing. They'd be putting disclaimer stickers in math books when you were done talking.

You really don't know how to talk to a layperson, do you?

[Silicon]

Here's a better response:

Originally posted by csense

Even if what you propose is true, it says nothing as to the validity of either evolution or intelligent design.


Actually, you know what, it DOES.

Because, here in the REAL WORLD, unlike Logic class, there is a reality outside the world of a mathematical proof.

Human beings are illogical at times. Get used to it. No number of science textbooks will convince people of something that a simple factoid like mine can.

In the Real World, one built by people who don't know the Socratic principles from succotash, the number of Lawyers to scientists DOES say something about the validity of a hypothesis. It says that SCIENTISTS don't think the hypothesis has validity.


And that can make the difference. It convinces school boards that they should take the advice of scientists. It puts a block up against the con-game of ID.

If you want to argue against the political movement of ID with science, go ahead. You'll lose, but go ahead. Every time you put a scientist on the stage against them, it makes them look like real scientists. It makes the ID faithful think there's a real debate within the scientific community.


I'm for showing it for what it is, politics.

[csense]

Originally posted by Silicon
"A simple factiod to convince fence-sitters."



You haven't even established that it is a fact, to wit:

"I made up the ratio. Anyone know how many actual researchers are currently working on ID, vs how many lawyers are currently engaged by the movement in various courts and school-boards?"


That said, why is it rational for you to engage in politics, amongst other things, yet it is irrational for them to do the same.

Explain that to me.

[Silicon]

Because by posting here I'm asking the readers of JREF for the data to use as a political argument in the future.




While an ID supporter would argue first and probably never look for the fact.

[csense]

(csense)
Even if what you propose is true, it says nothing as to the validity of either evolution or intelligent design.

(Silicon)
Actually, you know what, it DOES.

...the number of Lawyers to scientists DOES say something about the validity of a hypothesis. It says that SCIENTISTS don't think the hypothesis has validity.


Well, for those scientists who don't think the hypothesis has merit, I sincerely doubt that it has anything to do with lawyers.

[csense]

Originally posted by Silicon
Because by posting here I'm asking the readers of JREF for the data to use as a political argument in the future.

While an ID supporter would argue first and probably never look for the fact.

Unlike you of course, who argues first, and then looks for supporting evidence.

Yup, you're certainly different from those who you perceive as them.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Silicon
I may be taking the "proof" idea a bit too far, since in some senses ID is unfalsifiable.

By Proof, I mean a simple factoid to convince fence-sitters. Something that can be brought up in Kansas and anywhere else where people are debating teaching evolution vs. ID.


Convince the person in question that ID is not an intellectual movement, it is a political movement. We know this to be the case, but as ID proponents cast themselves, ID is a theory "growing in popularity", they try and convince people that more and more experts are signing on to this amazing new discovery that will inevitably win out, were it not for those meddling few dogmatic scientist/athiest/communists left.


So here's the proof (and where I need an expert to find the actual data I need).

Here's what you say to a fence-sitter:

"The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis is a political movement, not a scientific field. This is obvious when you look at the number of lawyers the ID movement employs. It seems a pretty pathetic "science" to me where they have 50 lawyers for every one researcher. They got more lawyers than they have scientists. Does that sound like a science to you? It sure doesn't to me. Are they trying to prove their hypotheses, or are they just fighting it out in court with a pack of high-priced lawyers? Isn't it obvious that they don't have any science at all? But they sure got lawyers."



(I made up the ratio. Anyone know how many actual researchers are currently working on ID, vs how many lawyers are currently engaged by the movement in various courts and school-boards?)

WOW! Why do I bother :rolleyes: It's a good job you put "proof" in inverted commas. There isn't even a sniff of an argument in here, never mind a proof! :eek:

Dear me! Unbelievable :(

[Silicon]

Originally posted by csense
Unlike you of course, who argues first, and then looks for supporting evidence.

Yup, you're certainly different from those who you perceive as them.


Please instruct me on how to use this forum, CSense.

Are you saying that I'm not allowed to use it to discuss, plan and seek information regarding argumentation strategies I may use on creationists elsewhere in the future?

Sorry, didn't see that in the Terms of Service agreement.


Read my first post. I'm asking for help finding the data.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Silicon
Please instruct me on how to use this forum, CSense.

Are you saying that I'm not allowed to use it to discuss, plan and seek information regarding argumentation strategies I may use on creationists elsewhere in the future?

Sorry, didn't see that in the Terms of Service agreement.


Read my first post. I'm asking for help finding the data.

I think this argument can be settled if you allow for rethinking your position if the facts don't match your guess.

Personally, I bet your ratio is probably not far off, but I'd love to know for real.

[csense]

Originally posted by Silicon
Please instruct me on how to use this forum, CSense.

Are you saying that I'm not allowed to use it to discuss, plan and seek information regarding argumentation strategies I may use on creationists elsewhere in the future?

Sorry, didn't see that in the Terms of Service agreement.


Read my first post. I'm asking for help finding the data.

...To paraphrase the words of a member here: "you chew through strawmen like a weedwhacker through dandelions"

You're free to believe and propose anything you want, even if they are without merit, reason, or evidence.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by gnome
I think this argument can be settled if you allow for rethinking your position if the facts don't match your guess.


NEVER!!!! My guess is based on the irrefutable word of God!

;-)


Gnome, you get it. I'm looking for help designing an argument. If there's no data, it's useless to me as an argument. It's discarded.



Can anyone please help me with data?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Originally posted by Silicon
I may be taking the "proof" idea a bit too far [snip]
WOW! Why do I bother :rolleyes: It's a good job you put "proof" in inverted commas. There isn't even a sniff of an argument in here, never mind a proof! :eek:

Dear me! Unbelievable :(
The first few words of Silicon's post dont provide enough justice...