Hi, Archangel.
Archangel writes:
I keep hearing this excuse and justification for why evo cannot be absolutely proven or supported with facts, but I completely disagree with you as you say:
nothing is absolute in science. An important property of science is tentativity. This statement is absolutely false as it applies to real science.
The way to test the veracity of a scientific hypothesis is a statistical method called "hypothesis testing." The ultimate output of this method is a bell curve demarcated with a confidence interval, which is a point estimate plus/minus a margin of error, which we can state, with a given level of confidence, contains the actual value of the parameter we're trying to estimate.
Then, there's an F-test, which compares the variation in quantitative values explained by the model (i.e., the hypothesis) to the variation not explained by the model.
And, there are significance tests, which tell us whether two values can realistically be considered different from one another.
And, there are more complex things, like bootstrapping. But, none of them is capable of pinpointing an exact value with 100% certainty. Not even engineers and mechanics, whom you laud so completely, can state 100% certainty of their findings. Verifying the findings with real-world tests also does not produce 100% certainty.
-----
Archangel writes:
Apple didn't spend millions upon millions of dollars in initial production costs without knowing that the science which went into the design of my Macbook is tested, proven science and reliable technology.
Apple wasn't testing any scientific theories, either: they were looking for solution that works. For instance, ancient people were able to discover and utilize the combustion power of gunpowder over 1000 years ago. These same people thought the world's functions and processes could be described by the "Wu Xing" ("Five Phases": fire, water, wood, metal and earth), and thought that drinking mercury would make them immortal.
Clearly, being able to make things that work is not the same thing as formulating a theoretical, scientific explanation for [i]why[i] or
how they work.
The development of your computer, although heavily reliant on theories about electricity, optics and information, is not analogous to theoretical science, and theoretical science has more right to claim the title "real science" than does engineering or technology.
Edited by Bluejay, : Only one article is required before a word
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.