Qualifications

[Lestat]

Not being a mathematician, engineer, or scientist, but an out and out layman, I can only muse philosophically about many of the topics posted on SMP. For instance...

I can no more prove that evolution is a strong theory, than I can prove light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or that a given object in space is 20 light years away. I don't have the technical accuity to do so. Since I have no aspirations of making any break-throughs or discoveries myself, I have no inclination to rigorously study these subjects. So I leave it to the scientific world and trust what they tell me. If the scientific community tells me that it takes a little over 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach the earth, having no reason to doubt them, I believe it and take this as accurate.

Reading the ongoing debates between Sharkey and others, I'm starting to think that people like myself are simply not qualified to render opinions on certain topics here. All I can contribute are philosophical opinions.

I am incredibly baffled that no one has yet prove to people like Sharkey that evolution is a valid scientific theory. Again, I can see why I would have trouble proving it, but then I'd have trouble proving a lot of things (how fast light travels, for instance). But if evolution is such a strong theory, I'm aghast that no one has been able to convince Sharkey yet! Or at least shove the strong evidence directly under his nose and leave him only with assinine denials. Has this been done?

The problem is in dealing with things that are not readily observable. As the OP in the recent evolution thread states, a theist will ask: Show me evidence of an ape giving birth to a human. Of course, this can't be done. I do think it's ironic that people like Sharkey are willing to greatly reduce their observable evidence requirements when it comes to creationism and God. Certainly a double standard. But I also don't understand why proponents of evolution cannot make a stronger case. I mean if we had to, we could spell out in detail how we know the speed of light even though this is unobservable to the naked eye, couldn't we? Why can't we do the same thing with respect to evolution?

[chrisnice]

How does a lawyer defend an obviously guilty man. I dont mean morally, I mean how can he make a case when the man is 100% certainly guilty. When you come to a conclusion first its easy to cherry pick your suporting facts. Just look at politics. There was a sprinkler thread a little while ago where Feynman was said to make a convincing argument for two opposite solutions even though there can only be one correct solution.

The most telling thing ive heard Sharkey say is "You wont make a monkey out of me."

Scientists looked at facts and came to evolution. Creationists start with their conclusion and look to find support.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean if we had to, we could spell out in detail how we know the speed of light even though this is unobservable to the naked eye, couldn't we?

[/ QUOTE ]
Scientists want us to believe the speed of light is constant so they can make all kinds of ridiculous claims about the universe. Even if we take their so-called 'experiments' on Faith, they still haven't proven that the speed of light is constant on the far side of Zeno. Heck, we've only been measuring it for, like, 1% of the 6,000 years we've been here, it could have been a lot different 300 years ago or 100 years from now.

Until somebody shows me compelling evidence, I'm leaving open that it's a localized, temporal condition, even if we believe our scientists are devout.

luckyme

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I can no more prove that evolution is a strong theory, than I can prove light travels at 186,000 miles per second

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point.

Sharkey, do you believe this to be the speed of light? If so, why?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can no more prove that evolution is a strong theory, than I can prove light travels at 186,000 miles per second

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point.

Sharkey, do you believe this to be the speed of light? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when you get down to it, nothing can be absolutely proved . But I'm sure the speed of light can be observed through measurements. And that's my point. So should evolution, yet no one has been able to convince Sharkey yet.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, when you get down to it, nothing can be absolutely proved . But I'm sure the speed of light can be observed through measurements. And that's my point. So should evolution, yet no one has been able to convince Sharkey yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was more: his problems with evolution should also apply to the SoL. I mean, he hasnt observed it right? He has to resort to "faith" in "experts", no?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am incredibly baffled that no one has yet prove to people like Sharkey that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am incredibly baffled as to why you are incredibly baffled by this.

chez

[Sharkey]

Unless you are of a faith in “science”, you start by accepting that some science is well done and some is not.

The good news is that science, by its very nature, is transparent, so it’s an open book. If the logic or the facts are inadequate, but instead there’s an asterisks to “seems plausible” or “trust us, we’re experts”, then it’s NOT science.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I am incredibly baffled as to why you are incredibly baffled by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Second.

Deep psychological needs trump evidence. A typical newspaper will illustrate that every day in several places. Sharkey is not unusual in that regard, and I'm not referring to his particular creationist brand, just that 'belief without evidence' or 'belief contrary to evidence' is common on a truckload of issues.

luckyme

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you are of a faith in “science”, you start by accepting that some science is well done and some is not.

The good news is that science, by its very nature, is transparent, so it’s an open book. If the logic or the facts are inadequate, but instead there’s an asterisks to “sounds plausible” or “trust us, we’re experts”, then it’s NOT science.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have never satisfactorily (imo of course) described why you think that evolution is "bad science".

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
You have never satisfactorily (imo of course) described why you think that evolution is "bad science".

[/ QUOTE ]

I have described the shortcomings of the theory by way of several questions, which remain without responsive answers, in the evolution thread. I can repost them there (to not hijack this thread).

[Lestat]

It baffles me because people like Sharkey, siegfriedandroy, MikeTurner, etc. obviously are people of some intellect. It is not they who baffle me, it is those who cannot put forth a convincing enough argument to squash their doubts.

News events can be of an opining nature. I was against going into Iraq, because... He was for it, because.... There is no concrete conclusion. You can show me evidence for why a course is best, but I don't have to agree with it.

But when dealing with scientific theories such as speed of light, Theory of Relativity, and yes, evolution... There should be means to show that x+y=z, therefore, z equals the sum of x+z. But alas, I am not technically skilled in this area, so I guess I am wrong?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
It baffles me because people like Sharkey, siegfriedandtoy, MikeTurner, etc. obviously are people of some intellect. It is not they who baffle me, it is those who cannot put forth a convincing enough argument to squash their doubts.

News events can be of an opining nature. I was against goint into Iraq, because... He was for it, because.... There is no concrete conclusion. But when dealing with scientific theories such as speed of light, Theory of Relativity, and yes, evolution... There should be means to show that x+y=z, therefore, z equals the sum of x+z. But alas, I am not technically skilled in this area, so I guess I am wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing is though,

what if Jesus says x + y != z

Then, anyone who believes in Jesus must look for evidence to show that x + y != z



EDIT: basically, these people go into science looking use the evidence to prove something rather than examining the evidence without an agenda

[madnak]

Well, some of the evidence is very technical. But some of the evidence isn't technical and is available to the layman. And even some of the technical evidence can be summarized - that's not as compelling because you have to take some things on faith. You may have to trust that the math is right by virtue of the fact nobody has disputed it. But that's not hard. If nobody anywhere has disputed the math, for me it's a safe assumption the math is correct.

With evolution, some of the strongest evidence is probably only available to chemists. But you can look at fossils, consider the animal kingdom, and you can consider what happens when sexual reproduction occurs. Evolution stands to reason from the fact that parents pass their genetic information to their offspring alone. And there are a large number of historical cases of microevolution to establish that, and many cases of extreme mutation even in human beings. You can see pictures of people with extra heads and other such things with a simple google search.

I'd recommend reading an introduction to geology if you want to increase your understanding of the evidence manyfold. Some of the techniques used really aren't that complicated, and when you understand how things like rocks work and how much evidence there is for continental drift and how much the world has changed over time you'll feel much more confident.

I think one of the biggest problems is that there's so much evidence available to the layman. And every piece of evidence fits perfectly into the whole puzzle. It's astonishing how well each new bit of information you learn fits with all the rest of it. Really awe-inspiring. But of course, you can't describe that to people because in discussions you're restricted to providing individual isolated examples of evidence.

[Trantor]

http://physics.about.com/cs/opticsexperiments/a/290903.htm

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to think that people like myself are simply not qualified to render opinions on certain topics here. All I can contribute are philosophical opinions.


[/ QUOTE ] No one, barring God himself, is qualified in sharkey's mind to argue against his interpratation of the bible, and thus evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
But if evolution is such a strong theory, I'm aghast that no one has been able to convince Sharkey yet!

[/ QUOTE ] Sharkey uses epistomological questions to cast doubt on evolution. Evolution is infered and not directly observed, it is very easy for sharkey to gain the upper ground on evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Or at least shove the strong evidence directly under his nose and leave him only with assinine denials. Has this been done?


[/ QUOTE ] I'm afraid there isn't any strong evidence. It's a neat scientific theory because it is able to produce predictions about the world. 1 exapmle is the type of fossils we will find. It is good science because the predictions that the theory makes are always confirmed and never denied. But this type of evidence leaves open the wide birth of epistomological questioning that sharkey produces.

[ QUOTE ]
I do think it's ironic that people like Sharkey are willing to greatly reduce their observable evidence requirements when it comes to creationism and God.

[/ QUOTE ] Ironic is the wrong term. Unfair would be better.

[ QUOTE ]
But I also don't understand why proponents of evolution cannot make a stronger case.

[/ QUOTE ] It's a very strong case, it just doesn't hold up to epistomological proofs well. Like mathematics do.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid there isn't any strong evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that standard there's no strong evidence of anything empirical. There's no strong evidence the earth revolves around the sun, or humans have cells, or matter has atoms, or the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. If there is strong evidence for those things (which are also susceptible to epistemological arguments), then there is strong evidence for evolution.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
earth revolves around the sun

[/ QUOTE ] The explanation is so much simplier that the alternative. Strong evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
humans have cells

[/ QUOTE ] Cells can be directly observed.

[ QUOTE ]
matter has atoms

[/ QUOTE ] We are getting much closer.

[ QUOTE ]
sun rises in the east and sets in the west

[/ QUOTE ] Directly observed as well.

I'm sure you can find better examples that are only infered and not directly observed. Additionaly Evoltion requires a fair ammount of study, and replacement learning to accept.

[madnak]

Conclusions reached from direct observation are inference, and evolution is much simpler than the alternatives. And atoms definitely meet that criterion.

Also cells can't be directly observed, and nobody can conclude that the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west through observation. If you haven't watched the sun rise and set under all conditions in all geographical locations, you're making inferences based on your limited observations. Which is exactly what evolution does.

[DougShrapnel]

You win this round. Now explain it to shrakey.

[bunny]

I've been puzzled by this too, Lestat. I asked a couple of friends of mine (1 geneticist, 1 microbiologist and a biochemist) about it. The best answer I got was - nobody bothers doing research into "is evolution real?" because it so obviously is. The evidence for it is that a whole host of unrelated fields hang together neatly. By asking for a specific example of speciation (which according to at least 1 of my friends is impossible to produce in principle, even if evolution is true) Sharkey seems to be making a reasonable request but in reality it is no more reasonable than asking a physicist to "show me an electron". You cant, you can only infer they exist.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I am incredibly baffled that no one has yet prove to people like Sharkey that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

No mystery there. For people like Sharkey, there is nothing that will prove to their satisfaction that evolution is a valid scientific theory. If you had a time macine and a time lapse camera that showed one species evolving to another, he would still claim that you had tampered with the camera.

[pilliwinks]

Doubtless he would also claim that you cannot generalise from one puny example to the whole of nature (a more justifiable complaint IMHO).

The primary reason why nobody can convince the unwilling that evolution occurs, is because it takes so long. Your speed of light measurements are trivial to carry out. Every uni in the world could try it for themselves. Then nobody denies that (at least at the moment) we know the speed of light.

An experiment to recapitulate the divergence even between the closest of species, would be expected to take millions of generations and be expected to turn out differently to the way it did in nature! This is a problem.

Of course, there are more ways to provide scientific evidence in favor of a theory than to try and rebuild nature. Inevitably, they will rely on inference and generalisation. This is where the true believers attack, and to be fair, inference can be wrong. Of course there is no scientific theory about the physical world which does not rely on inference and generalisation. It is the business of science to provide the most reliable generalisations we can formulate on the basis of the evidence. This has happened, and is happening for evolution, and the theory in pole position at the moment is the one you all know. Nobody who understands science claims it is 'correct'. I do not personally know any biologists with integrity who dispute that it is the best fit to the available data.

Naturally, many will feel that Genesis is a datum that cannot be ignored. The fact that it conflicts with our current models for geology, cosmology, botany, zoology, anthropology, archaeology and several other ologies, means that such people are likely to downplay the ability of science to provide anything useful. This is a logically defensible standpoint (there is no reason the world should be rational or consistent), but it means that the problem with convincing them of evolution has nothing to do with the quality or quantity of available scientific evidence.

Those who do not insist on Genesis should be able to comfortably accept our current model for evolution, knowing that it is false, but closer to true than any alternative we can think of.

Those who insist on a literal Genesis have to accept a world-view that does not fit our current understanding of the data. Maybe one day we will see how it all fits, but currently it looks as if God was trying very hard indeed to shake the faith of his believers...

Completely off topic, here is my favorite quote from St Augustine:

[ QUOTE ]
“It frequently happens that there is some question about the earth, or the sky, or the other elements of this world, the movement, revolutions, or even the size and distance of the stars, the regular eclipses of the sun and the moon, the course of the years and seasons; the nature of the animals, vegetables and minerals, and other things of the same kind, respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from the most certain reasoning or observation. And it is highly deplorable and mischievous and a thing especially to be guarded against that he should hear a Christian speaking of such matters in accordance with Christian writings and uttering such nonsense that, knowing him to be as wide of the mark as east is from west, the unbeliever can scarcely restrain himself from laughing.

And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save...How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, know by direct observation or by calculation which admits no doubt?”

[/ QUOTE ]

He may be dead for a millenium, but he knew a thing or two.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody who understands science claims it is 'correct'.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's correct in the sense that it's correct to stay in a big pot when you have a straight flush on a paired board. Of course you can't know you're going to win. That other guy could have quads! So you fold? I don't think so.

The theory of evolution fits the available data extremely well. It is also the only theory that account for a number of clear and very consistent patterns in the world. No ID theory even attempts to explain some of these patterns. And the patterns indicate something, whether or not it's evolution. Whatever that something is, it appears to be contradictory to ID.

Edit:

Furthermore, when you look at the natural patterns from the perspective of evolution, every single one of them fits together perfectly, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Not only does it explain them, it brings them together. That makes it one of the stronger theories. That's the only reason we believe the earth revolves around the sun. It's the only reason we believe in atoms.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't we do the same thing with respect to evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the first thing we need to identify is whether creationists are disputing the "Fact of Evolution" or "the various theories about it, often generalized as - the Theory of Evolution"

It's possible to agree that life form evolve and disagree that Natural Selection or Sexual Selection or Genetic Drift or X is the theory(s) that fits the facts.

If we had a film over 1M years of evolution of salmon, that itself may prove litte about any of the theories.

So when Sharkyites ask for a picture of an ape giving birth to a Helmuth ( surely that would be beyond microevolution), it can't be the theory of evolution they are challenging ????

luckyme

[Sharkey]

Bunny,

Your comparison to “show me an electron” isn’t quite right. What I am asking, to improve the analogy, is to be shown data on the supposed effects of the electron such that your conclusions about the existence of such a particle must be true if the observations are correct. This is what’s known as deduction.

A similar process was required of the discovers of the actual electron about 100 years ago.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
... such that your conclusions about the existence of such a particle must be true if the observations are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't a requirement of science.

chez

[Sharkey]

Just to clarify, do you mean the process of deduction I described is not a requirement of the scientific method?

[siegfriedandroy]

Interesting post, Lestat. I dont think you lack qualification to discuss these issues, simply b/c you lack a PHD in physics, etc. You seem to be at least as well informed as most on these boards, and probably substantially more intellectually honest. Personally, I think you overestimate the ability of so-called authorities (who are simply 'authorities' b/c they received a piece of paper confirming their study of science for several years. IMO, it's pretty easy in this country to get a degree in any subject in this country doing minimal work, and not truly learning much of anything about the subjects in question. Maybe not so much at the PHD level, but Im sure many have written thesis papers on random, obscure subjects w/o really learning and grasping basic, fundamental principles of their general field. I have a friend with a science degree who knows very little about science. There are many like this. I am positive there are many like him. Anyway, enough rambling. Nice post.

[siegfriedandroy]

You are not at all addressing Lestat's concerns.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, do you mean the process of deduction I described is not a requirement of the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean that the scientific method does not require that the observations being correct deductively imply the existence of anything.

That seems clear, is it not what you meant?

chez

[frankidoodle]

As any good scientist will tell you, nothing can be proven. Only a reasonable conclusion from an array of information can be brought about. Take the Pythagorous theroem for example, do the calculations and the measurements a zillion trillion times and the theorem stands up. It is still called a theory in science despite a computer running the theory for over thirty years and never ever once coming up with any evidence to disprove it. My point? It is thus with evolution, there are zillions upon zillions of pieces of information which leads to the THEORY of evolution, however we scientists freely admit that this is still a theory. A reasonable person puts the information together and assembles a valid probability based on the information. An unreasonable person buries his head in the sand and sides against all the masses of evidence. A simple example of how evolution acts at this moment would be to take a bacterial colony and introduce a known toxin to the bacteria colony. Do this over and over and there will be 1 bacteria that can survive against the toxin,it follows that all its decendants (mostly all) will be resistant to that toxin also. Need I go on?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
As any good scientist will tell you, nothing can be proven. Only a reasonable conclusion from an array of information can be brought about. Take the Pythagorous theroem for example, do the calculations and the measurements a zillion trillion times and the theorem stands up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad example. The Pythagorean Theorem is easily provable under the conditions where it applies (eg Euclidean space). You dont need thousands of hours of computer time to show that it must be true.

I think there is confusion when using the words "theorem" or "theory" as applied to mathematics, where they are almost always provable, vs science, where they are never provable.

[madnak]

Not only is that process of deduction you described not necessary in science, it's not even part of science! Science is inductive.

Where in the hell did you learn about the scientific method? Some deduction can be useful to get from point A to point B, but what you described has no place in scientific inquiry.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
be shown data on the supposed effects of the electron such that your conclusions about the existence of such a particle must be true if the observations are correct

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, this has never happened in regards to the electron. So by your standards electrons don't exist. What are you talking about 100 years ago?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, do you mean the process of deduction I described is not a requirement of the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean that the scientific method does not require that the observations being correct deductively imply the existence of anything.

That seems clear, is it not what you meant?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear enough, though that’s not what I mean. The inferred existence of something depends on observations economically leading to such a conclusion. That’s the aspect of the scientific method I’m referring to.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, do you mean the process of deduction I described is not a requirement of the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean that the scientific method does not require that the observations being correct deductively imply the existence of anything.

That seems clear, is it not what you meant?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear enough, though that’s not what I mean. The inferred existence of something depends on observations economically leading to such a conclusion. That’s the aspect of the scientific method I’m referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a lot closer, still a few problems but they're a bit nitty. 'economically' like beauty tends to be in the eye of the beholder and isn't really part of the scientific method although its certainly used by scientists. If two theories predict the same results then there's no scientific way to decide between them although people may prefer one to the other.

Also, scientific observation do not lead to the conclusion that objects exist. They can only lead to the conclusion that a theory is unsatisfactory.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, do you mean the process of deduction I described is not a requirement of the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean that the scientific method does not require that the observations being correct deductively imply the existence of anything.

That seems clear, is it not what you meant?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear enough, though that’s not what I mean. The inferred existence of something depends on observations economically leading to such a conclusion. That’s the aspect of the scientific method I’m referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a lot closer, still a few problems but they're a bit nitty. 'economically' like beauty tends to be in the eye of the beholder and isn't really part of the scientific method although its certainly used by scientists. If two theories predict the same results then there's no scientific way to decide between them although people may prefer one to the other.

Also, scientific observation do not lead to the conclusion that objects exist. They can only lead to the conclusion that a theory is unsatisfactory.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of economy is more than just aesthetics. Such a standard imposes minimum requirements of evidence, which I am invoking here.

In empirical science, an “object” is (approximately) the sum of its measurable parameters. This isn’t the same as what you might consider an object in everyday experience.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, do you mean the process of deduction I described is not a requirement of the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean that the scientific method does not require that the observations being correct deductively imply the existence of anything.

That seems clear, is it not what you meant?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear enough, though that’s not what I mean. The inferred existence of something depends on observations economically leading to such a conclusion. That’s the aspect of the scientific method I’m referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a lot closer, still a few problems but they're a bit nitty. 'economically' like beauty tends to be in the eye of the beholder and isn't really part of the scientific method although its certainly used by scientists. If two theories predict the same results then there's no scientific way to decide between them although people may prefer one to the other.

Also, scientific observation do not lead to the conclusion that objects exist. They can only lead to the conclusion that a theory is unsatisfactory.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of economy is more than just aesthetics. Such a standard imposes minimum requirements of evidence, which I am invoking here.

In empirical science, an “object” is (approximately) the sum of its measurable parameters. This isn’t the same as what you might consider an object in everyday experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying you can infer its measured parameters from its measured parameters?

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, do you mean the process of deduction I described is not a requirement of the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean that the scientific method does not require that the observations being correct deductively imply the existence of anything.

That seems clear, is it not what you meant?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear enough, though that’s not what I mean. The inferred existence of something depends on observations economically leading to such a conclusion. That’s the aspect of the scientific method I’m referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a lot closer, still a few problems but they're a bit nitty. 'economically' like beauty tends to be in the eye of the beholder and isn't really part of the scientific method although its certainly used by scientists. If two theories predict the same results then there's no scientific way to decide between them although people may prefer one to the other.

Also, scientific observation do not lead to the conclusion that objects exist. They can only lead to the conclusion that a theory is unsatisfactory.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of economy is more than just aesthetics. Such a standard imposes minimum requirements of evidence, which I am invoking here.

In empirical science, an “object” is (approximately) the sum of its measurable parameters. This isn’t the same as what you might consider an object in everyday experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying you can infer its measured parameters from its measured parameters?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Close. You can infer measurable parameters from measurements of parameters.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, do you mean the process of deduction I described is not a requirement of the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean that the scientific method does not require that the observations being correct deductively imply the existence of anything.

That seems clear, is it not what you meant?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear enough, though that’s not what I mean. The inferred existence of something depends on observations economically leading to such a conclusion. That’s the aspect of the scientific method I’m referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a lot closer, still a few problems but they're a bit nitty. 'economically' like beauty tends to be in the eye of the beholder and isn't really part of the scientific method although its certainly used by scientists. If two theories predict the same results then there's no scientific way to decide between them although people may prefer one to the other.

Also, scientific observation do not lead to the conclusion that objects exist. They can only lead to the conclusion that a theory is unsatisfactory.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of economy is more than just aesthetics. Such a standard imposes minimum requirements of evidence, which I am invoking here.

In empirical science, an “object” is (approximately) the sum of its measurable parameters. This isn’t the same as what you might consider an object in everyday experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying you can infer its measured parameters from its measured parameters?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Close. You can infer measurable parameters from measurements of parameters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay and scientific theories predict measurable parameters, and the scientific method is measuring them to try and disprove the theory. There's no inference to the objective existence of anything.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no inference to the objective existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inference is to the objective existence of the causes of the measured quantities.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no inference to the objective existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inference is to the objective existence of the causes of the measured quantities.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's back to where we started, such inference is not part of the scientific method.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no inference to the objective existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inference is to the objective existence of the causes of the measured quantities.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's back to where we started, such inference is not part of the scientific method.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Not precisely where we started.

The scientific method consists of techniques for the investigation of phenomena in the natural (i.e. necessarily objective) world. That’s definitional.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no inference to the objective existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inference is to the objective existence of the causes of the measured quantities.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's back to where we started, such inference is not part of the scientific method.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Not precisely where we started.

The scientific method consists of techniques for the investigation of phenomena in the natural (i.e. necessarily objective) world. That’s definitional.

[/ QUOTE ]
but your claim that you can deductively infer the existence of objects causing the measurement is not a valid technique.

unless you can provide a deductive argument to demonstrate that it is.

chez

[Lestat]

You guys are way over my head here, but isn't inference from measurements a standard scientific technique?

For instance, don't we discover planets, black holes, etc., based on measurements that infer their existence?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are way over my head here, but isn't inference from measurements a standard scientific technique?

For instance, don't we discover planets, black holes, etc., based on measurements that infer their existence?

[/ QUOTE ]
The basic point is that its not deductive. The measurememnts dont imply the existence of the objects.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The measurememnts dont imply the existence of the objects. </font>

Man, I must really be dumb! I don't understand this!

Recently, in taking measurements of the path of a star it was noticed that the star was warbling. We know stars don't warble for no reason. Something must've been acting on this star. So from mearsurements, it was deducted that a planet must exist and be causing these weird measurements. To me this is deduction from measurements and it absolutely implied the existence of an object.

Yet, you seem to be saying it isn't? Or at least this isn't the way science works? I don't understand... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The measurememnts dont imply the existence of the objects. </font>

Man, I must really be dumb! I don't understand this!

Recently, in taking measurements of the path of a star it was noticed that the star was warbling. We know stars don't warble for no reason. Something must've been acting on this star. So from mearsurements, it was deducted that a planet must exist and be causing these weird measurements. To me this is deduction from measurements.

Yet, you seem to be saying it isn't? Or at least this isn't the way science works? I don't understand... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not deduction.

Its possible (you may argue improbable but that doesn't matter) that the effect was caused by something other than a planet.

Its commonly called abductive logic which is reasoning to an explanation to an observed fact.

Abductive reasoning can reach wrong conclusions whereas deductive reasoning cannot.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no inference to the objective existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inference is to the objective existence of the causes of the measured quantities.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's back to where we started, such inference is not part of the scientific method.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Not precisely where we started.

The scientific method consists of techniques for the investigation of phenomena in the natural (i.e. necessarily objective) world. That’s definitional.

[/ QUOTE ]
but your claim that you can deductively infer the existence of objects causing the measurement is not a valid technique.

unless you can provide a deductive argument to demonstrate that it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate a good reductio ad infinitum as much as anyone, but the point is different.

Inferring the existence of objects per se, no. The existence of objective causes (of effects on the measuring instruments), yes.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no inference to the objective existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inference is to the objective existence of the causes of the measured quantities.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's back to where we started, such inference is not part of the scientific method.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Not precisely where we started.

The scientific method consists of techniques for the investigation of phenomena in the natural (i.e. necessarily objective) world. That’s definitional.

[/ QUOTE ]
but your claim that you can deductively infer the existence of objects causing the measurement is not a valid technique.

unless you can provide a deductive argument to demonstrate that it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate a good reductio ad infinitum as much as anyone, but the point is different.

Inferring the existence of objects per se, no. The existence of objective causes (of effects on the measuring instruments), yes.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm objective causes, lets not go there.

The original point I disagreed with was:
[ QUOTE ]
... such that your conclusions about the existence of such a particle must be true if the observations are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
which is similar to LeStat's planet example I think. What you're saying now is very different.

chez

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no inference to the objective existence of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The inference is to the objective existence of the causes of the measured quantities.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's back to where we started, such inference is not part of the scientific method.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Not precisely where we started.

The scientific method consists of techniques for the investigation of phenomena in the natural (i.e. necessarily objective) world. That’s definitional.

[/ QUOTE ]
but your claim that you can deductively infer the existence of objects causing the measurement is not a valid technique.

unless you can provide a deductive argument to demonstrate that it is.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate a good reductio ad infinitum as much as anyone, but the point is different.

Inferring the existence of objects per se, no. The existence of objective causes (of effects on the measuring instruments), yes.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/miramax_films/pulp_fiction/_group_photos/john_travolta8.jpg

ENGLISH MUTHAFUCKA... DO YOU SPEAK IT???

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny,

Your comparison to “show me an electron” isn’t quite right. What I am asking, to improve the analogy, is to be shown data on the supposed effects of the electron such that your conclusions about the existence of such a particle must be true if the observations are correct. This is what’s known as deduction.

A similar process was required of the discovers of the actual electron about 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is right. Physicists accept the existence of fundamental particles as a brute fact (and if these are shown to arise from some deeper theory then they will accept that as a brute fact) because they have explanatory power. There was no ID equivalent saying "We wont accept electrons until you prove they exist." It's true they did some more experiments which were also consistent with electrons existing, but they never proved that they must exist (in fact, if it's all really strings or something even stranger then maybe they dont).

Similarly, evolutionary processes account for so much and there is no better scientific theory. Evolutionary theory should be adopted and the problems it faces should be the subject of research as they will reveal where it needs to be altered.

You have focussed on speciation as one of its biggest shortcomings - this is certainly accepted in the evolutionary literature. Similarly, the problem of timescale is recognised as a problem to be solved. It is not enough to say that some questions are unanswered therefore the theory is wrong. The fact is, the theory accounts for so much, so elegantly (variation within a species for one - I'm sure you wouldnt disagree with natural selection operating there) and it is possible (in principle) that it will also account for speciation.

Your much repeated request for an example of speciation is unfair, in my view, because evolutionary theory almost predicts that it is impossible to find. Ring species seem the best bet, but the fact is we would have to be incredible fortunate to find a common ancestor to two currently living species - even if we did, the evidence would be genetic and would that be enough to satisfy you? I'm sure there are IDers for whom it wouldnt.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
hmmm objective causes, lets not go there.

The original point I disagreed with was:
[ QUOTE ]
... such that your conclusions about the existence of such a particle must be true if the observations are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
which is similar to LeStat's planet example I think. What you're saying now is very different.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason for the original disagreement was a confusion between the two senses of “object” I described earlier. Could be my fault, who knows? It was an informative exchange, nevertheless.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
ENGLISH MUTHAFUCKA... DO YOU SPEAK IT???

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn’t that the dialect they use in the West Indies?

[Lestat]

Very good post Bunny. One day I need to ask you more about your axioms related to religion (or maybe you can PM me). You've been kind enouh to explain this ti me some, but I'm very interested to learn more details. It seems almost impossible to me that you are a theist. No offense, but there must be some unexplained gap in your worldview and only God is capable of filling it. ??

[Sharkey]

Top quality reply, as usual. Since I don’t want to turn the OP’s thread into another evolution debate, I’ll bounce back my response in an evolution thread you’re posting in, after I think about it for a while.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Very good post Bunny. One day I need to ask you more about your axioms related to religion (or maybe you can PM me). You've been kind enouh to explain this ti me some, but I'm very interested to learn more details. It seems almost impossible to me that you are a theist. No offense, but there must be some unexplained gap in your worldview and only God is capable of filling it. ??

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be happy to chat/discuss/debate...I dont really know what you want to hear though. With regard to being a scientifically minded theist, I think this is perhaps a cultural thing. I dont know much about America, but what I hear suggests that the vocally religious are predominantly unscientific in American society. I dont think this is true in Australia (Midge may disagree though) in that I think the church here tries to distance itself from scientific debate. It does still speak on moral and ethical issues but seems to take the view that science is science and religion is religion. My closest Christian friends are all scientists (including one biologist and one geneticist who are also fierce defenders of evolution).

[siegfriedandroy]

All of the 'layman' evidence you describe does nothing to explain how one species can transform into another. The evidence, as you say, can clearly explain microevolution, but definitely does not prove macro in anyway, and is no way clear and convincing in its attempt to be used for such a purpose.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
All of the 'layman' evidence you describe does nothing to explain how one species can transform into another. The evidence, as you say, can clearly explain microevolution, but definitely does not prove macro in anyway, and is no way clear and convincing in its attempt to be used for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just add a lot of micros over time and you get a macro. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But I guess that it is difficult for some people to envisage that.

[siegfriedandroy]

The same applies to those in your camp as well, with regard to psychological reasons to belief. I can assure you, that with myself (and probably Sharkey as well), our questioning of evolutionary theory has little/nothing to do with belief w/o evidence. It is simply honest skepticism of all the information presented us. I have examined such evidence and find it utterly lacking to prove that all of life evolved from a single cell w/o any divine intervention (assuming the standard and traditional Darwinian theory). I believe your psychology statement applies to many ardent evolutionists, who will cling to their naturalistic, atheistic presuppositions despite any evidence they are confronted with.

[madnak]

I'm discussing the evidence rather than presenting it. Macro-evolution is much harder to justify because not only are there various theories regarding it, but it has probably happened in more than one way. That makes it complicated. It also happens over a very long time frame and is presumably very complex.

That doesn't mean the evidence for it is weaker, but it's much muddier.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The same applies to those in your camp as well, with regard to psychological reasons to belief. I can assure you, that with myself (and probably Sharkey as well), our questioning of evolutionary theory has little/nothing to do with belief w/o evidence. It is simply honest skepticism of all the information presented us. I have examined such evidence and find it utterly lacking to prove that all of life evolved from a single cell w/o any divine intervention (assuming the standard and traditional Darwinian theory). I believe your psychology statement applies to many ardent evolutionists, who will cling to their naturalistic, atheistic presuppositions despite any evidence they are confronted with.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct that evolution hasnt provided a lot of evidence for the origin of species (the title of Darwin's book notwithstanding). Research has been fairly sparse although apparently there was renewed interest from the 1980s resulting in a spate of relatively new theories and results. As I understand it, Darwin's view on speciation was rejected very early on in the field of evolutionary biology - the modern conception of speciation is a little more subtle and technical, I believe. Also, it is not true that there is no evidence for a universal common ancestor - just not direct evidence. Another point I would make is that pretty much every pro-evolution poster here has avoided claiming that evolution = no God. It is true that many people do make that claim but they are clearly stepping outside the bounds of evolutionary biology when they do.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
I have examined such evidence and find it utterly lacking to prove that all of life evolved from a single cell w/o any divine intervention

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be interested to know why you think there are so many christians (including the Pope?) who do not find the evidence lacking?

If you do not accept the biological arguments, perhaps you prefer the sociological argument: if there were an alternative explanation that was not badly at odds with the available data, people would be getting Nobel prizes for it. Personally I would be delighted to come up with an ID explanation that held water, it would certainly make my career (after much controversy, but scientists thrive on that). Science is dog-eat-dog, and there are a lot of dogs out there just busting to make a name for themselves. If there were a better solution, it would come out.

Some claim that the scientific establishment is so strong that alternatives to evolution will always be crushed, but this has been refuted by several significant alterations to the theory over the years.

Maybe you think that ID is the movement that will replace evolution. All I can say is, look at the data. Not the interpretations, the data. I would love ID to be right, but I have this crap-o-meter that redlines every time I read them...

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All of the 'layman' evidence you describe does nothing to explain how one species can transform into another. The evidence, as you say, can clearly explain microevolution, but definitely does not prove macro in anyway, and is no way clear and convincing in its attempt to be used for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just add a lot of micros over time and you get a macro. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Complete nonsense.

In fact, the opposite is generally true in the real world as described by science, not fairytales.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All of the 'layman' evidence you describe does nothing to explain how one species can transform into another. The evidence, as you say, can clearly explain microevolution, but definitely does not prove macro in anyway, and is no way clear and convincing in its attempt to be used for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just add a lot of micros over time and you get a macro. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Complete nonsense.

In fact, the opposite is generally true in the real world as described by science, not fairytales.

[/ QUOTE ]

You embarass yourself more and more every time you post. Give it up before someone who knows you stumbles across this board and realizes what an utter twit you are.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just add a lot of micros over time and you get a macro. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Complete nonsense.

In fact, the opposite is generally true in the real world as described by science, not fairytales.

[/ QUOTE ]

You embarass yourself more and more every time you post. Give it up before someone who knows you stumbles across this board and realizes what an utter twit you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure would be nifty if you would, every now and then, throw in the odd on-topic fact along with your limp-noodle personal attacks.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All of the 'layman' evidence you describe does nothing to explain how one species can transform into another. The evidence, as you say, can clearly explain microevolution, but definitely does not prove macro in anyway, and is no way clear and convincing in its attempt to be used for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just add a lot of micros over time and you get a macro. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Complete nonsense.

In fact, the opposite is generally true in the real world as described by science, not fairytales.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm the opposite huh??? Add a lot of macros and you get a micro. Are the names, of "your" sciences, snow white and cinderella, by any chance?

Anyway another loss to sharkey.. "add many macros to get a micro...". LOL

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmmm objective causes, lets not go there.

The original point I disagreed with was:
[ QUOTE ]
... such that your conclusions about the existence of such a particle must be true if the observations are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
which is similar to LeStat's planet example I think. What you're saying now is very different.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason for the original disagreement was a confusion between the two senses of “object” I described earlier. Could be my fault, who knows? It was an informative exchange, nevertheless.

[/ QUOTE ]
with your clarified definition of object, I can't see what you mean by the original statement.

[ QUOTE ]
... such that your conclusions about the existence of such a particle must be true if the observations are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

reduces to

[ QUOTE ]
... such that the causes of the observed observations causes the observed observations

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps an example would help?
chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All of the 'layman' evidence you describe does nothing to explain how one species can transform into another. The evidence, as you say, can clearly explain microevolution, but definitely does not prove macro in anyway, and is no way clear and convincing in its attempt to be used for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just add a lot of micros over time and you get a macro. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Complete nonsense.

In fact, the opposite is generally true in the real world as described by science, not fairytales.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm the opposite huh??? Add a lot of macros and you get a micro. Are the names, of "your" sciences, snow white and cinderella, by any chance?

Anyway another loss to sharkey.. "add many macros to get a micro...". LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Add a lot of micros over time and you DO NOT get a macro.

Such disjunctions are generally the rule in time as in space, mass, volume, complexity, velocity, etc. Simple addition CANNOT be taken for granted, especially when dealing with something as complicated as life.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Add a lot of micros over time and you DO NOT get a macro.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was quoting you directly and verbatim: "In fact, the opposite is generally true in the real world as described by science, not fairytales.".

Simply check your previous post. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Sharkey lost again /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]

Such disjunctions are generally the rule in time as in space, mass, volume, complexity, velocity, etc. Simple addition CANNOT be taken for granted, especially when dealing with something as complicated as life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sober, smoking something? Sure sounds like it.


Yes, It is beautiful how simple life really is... it all started with a single molecule capable of replicating and then just add time to an extend which you don't seem to be able to conceive of, and here you are. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

Try to reply to this post without either making reference to me, restating your starting assumption or declaring victory.

[MidGe]

I don't declare victory, I highlight sharkey's losses. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Why would I follow your instructions. They seem not to apply to you. Do I need quote you, for you to realise it(altough even then you probably won't)?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Try to reply to this post without either making reference to me, restating your starting assumption or declaring victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

ahhhhh, he objects to assumptions/declarations of victory.

How many Sharkey posts say "Thank you for your concession" or similar, when he doesnt understand or is unwilling to recognize the arguments presented.