BruceFenton
New
I hope that I have this argument structure correct. :)
My concern resides in this: That the epistemology we (not the 'Royal We' - LOL!! and a great point by Bruce) are employing to establish the case for this particular proto-hypothesis inside Intervention theory (NOT intelligent design and NOT creation), consists of linear inductive inference. That is, it is an extrapolation from a line drawn through a loose series of Inductive Predicates. The lone Deductive Predicate does not exclusively support the line of inductive inference reason - and this is important. It compels us to move somewhere, but that does not necessarily imply here.
We must be cautious in using linear inductive inference, as it has a high potential to be misleading. It bolsters its case off of confirmation (Anecdote being confirmed by Inductive Predicate) as opposed to prediction-under-risk and deductive consilience (what we need in the end).
This proto-hypothesis must now begin to make specific predictions at risk under the theory. It must step into the world of deductive inference and out of the world of inductive confirmation.
This is an informal critique however, and does not serve to make Bruce wrong as the sponsor of this alternative idea. A skeptic is an ally at this point in the Scientific Method. As a skeptic, I love this progression of thought, and am an ally in its hypothesis development.
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. The time of science or scientists is not wasted throughcompeting nor even fringe sponsored theories or observations. The ‘time’ of science is wastedthrough the dogma and intransigence of those who patrol its discourse, enforcing single answersunder a pretense of ‘science communication’.
Thank you for this detailed analysis!