[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders (response Part I)

[JMGreen at SISNA.COM (Jim Green)]

> The point is that these ideas are not untestable *in principle.* We
> may not be able to test them now, because we haven't the technology,
> for instance to build accelerators of the energy needed, or perhaps
> because no one has yet been clever enough to come up with some result
> within the theory that is testable now. One of the reasons that
> string theory hasn't taken over physics in spite of some very
> interesting results is just the issue of testability. If and when
> someone comes up with some definitive tests we will be able to settle
> the idea of whether string theory is a fruitful effort or not. Until
> they do, it remains speculation, regardless of how interesting it
> might be. But it does not have its untestability built into it, as ID
> does.

I find this very curious.  Why do you say that the ideas _you_ espouse are
"not untestable 'in principle'" and ID ideas "have its untestability built
into it"?  That has to be one of the most unscientific things -- of many --
said in this thread.  I get the feeling if the creator -- whoever that
might be -- were to come to your class room and declare how s/he/it did
things, you would say go away.  You are not a scientist.

I can't tell what is promoting all this apparent fear of open thinking on
this list, but it is repulsive.

Jim


Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen