Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Intelligent design

Recommended Posts

Guest hellokitty818

I do not understand this concept..your inputs are greatly appreciated

What knowledge issues are involved in the websites? Can Intelligent Design be a scientifically prove-able theory? Why or why not? Which theory is more scientifically viable?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7955846.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1529

I do not understand this concept..your inputs are greatly appreciated

What knowledge issues are involved in the websites? Can Intelligent Design be a scientifically prove-able theory? Why or why not? Which theory is more scientifically viable?

http://www.guardian....cience.research

http://www.pbs.org/w...sign-trial.html

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/7955846.stm

I'm not going to develop a long answer to this because it's much more complex and long than what I'm going to write but it's basically that people have a "perception" (a way of acquiring knowledge) which may not be the same as the so-called "reality" which has to do with the object itself rather than the interpretation of one to the object - called subjectivity. And with science, this is the question: Is what we really see in microscopes and all that the reality? or is it something "else"? Plus, is the method we are using the one that leads to knowledge or are we just rediscovering something that has been long here? These are the main questions put on the knowledge that is acquired from Science

However, other main problems are the utility and the way Science works. Science is based on observations which then lead to experimentation finally giving a conclusion. This conclusion may be just a theory and as you know, theories are simplifications of the reality and an interpretation of it so it's almost impossible for a theory to describe reality as it really is. Now, what is more is that theories are based on predictions and predictions are not enough to a Science which calls itself the source of knowledge. Theories such as the Hybridisation or the Electron Configuration/Arrangement in Chemistry come from mere approaches to probability of the location of an electron in space thus, it's possible that they may be proven "not complete" (because Science claims that no theory is fully wrong). Also, Science, because of all this, cannot explain everything and prove everything...

When it comes to artificial intelligence the question lays upon the perception: whether the machine can or not really apprehend reality as in humans. This question comes from the fact that humans use empirical knowledge and rational thinking at the same time to interpret something and not only one of them). It's needed an external stimulus to the brain to develop and process a nerve impulse and this is what lacks in machines - mainly emotions. For this, "Blade Runner" is an excellent example of this artificial intelligence

Did this answer to your question? :)

Edited by 1529

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest hellokitty818

I do not understand this concept..your inputs are greatly appreciated

What knowledge issues are involved in the websites? Can Intelligent Design be a scientifically prove-able theory? Why or why not? Which theory is more scientifically viable?

http://www.guardian....cience.research

http://www.pbs.org/w...sign-trial.html

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/7955846.stm

I'm not going to develop a long answer to this because it's much more complex and long than what I'm going to write but it's basically that people have a "perception" (a way of acquiring knowledge) which may not be the same as the so-called "reality" which has to do with the object itself rather than the interpretation of one to the object - called subjectivity. And with science, this is the question: Is what we really see in microscopes and all that the reality? or is it something "else"? Plus, is the method we are using the one that leads to knowledge or are we just rediscovering something that has been long here? These are the main questions put on the knowledge that is acquired from Science

However, other main problems are the utility and the way Science works. Science is based on observations which then lead to experimentation finally giving a conclusion. This conclusion may be just a theory and as you know, theories are simplifications of the reality and an interpretation of it so it's almost impossible for a theory to describe reality as it really is. Now, what is more is that theories are based on predictions and predictions are not enough to a Science which calls itself the source of knowledge. Theories such as the Hybridisation or the Electron Configuration/Arrangement in Chemistry come from mere approaches to probability of the location of an electron in space thus, it's possible that they may be proven "not complete" (because Science claims that no theory is fully wrong). Also, Science, because of all this, cannot explain everything and prove everything...

When it comes to artificial intelligence the question lays upon the perception: whether the machine can or not really apprehend reality as in humans. This question comes from the fact that humans use empirical knowledge and rational thinking at the same time to interpret something and not only one of them). It's needed an external stimulus to the brain to develop and process a nerve impulse and this is what lacks in machines - mainly emotions. For this, "Blade Runner" is an excellent example of this artificial intelligence

Did this answer to your question? :)

wow thanks that really helped but what science is more scientifically viable? Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1529

There's no science more viable... what people call as the perfection and the ultimate science - Mathematics - may already have a problem in their starting point: if the axioms that define Mathematics are correctly and completely established or is there any missing or wrong? Then, Mathematics is an abstract science and so, we cannot know if the way we're doing is correct or not. Maybe, in real mathematics 1+1=11, who knows? The same happens with Physics. You don't know if the Laws of Physics are true, in fact. They're just approaches...

That's how you should consider whether sciences are or not viable. They have their advantages and disadvantages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...