Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 215 (657046)
03-25-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2012 9:09 PM


The mind boggles.
You should try using it to see, instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 9:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2012 12:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 215 (657055)
03-25-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2012 3:32 PM


And yet when a machine makes a series of measurements and, based on a theory that tells it how to interpret those measurements, synthesizes a visual representation of its data, you wish to say that someone looking at this visual representation has "seen" atoms.
Let's assume that crashfrog is exactly correct about the sloppiness of the English language, and that "seeing" atoms perfectly well describes watching the visual display of a STM.
Then it must be the case that "seeing" atoms is not direct evidence of atoms bonding. It doesn't even matter if there is no English word whatsoever to distinguish between varieties of seeing. No amount of arm chair lexicography, including redefining the word "direct" in Orwellian fashion, is ever going to change the character of the present evidence for atoms or atomic bounding.
Regarding the Loch Ness Monster, as Uncle Jed said in The Big Chicken episode, "Ain't no such thing." So if follows that no one has ever seen one. Accordingly, a definition of seeing that requires you to say that you have seen Lochy when you have only seen the picture in your post cannot possibly be the only correct definition.
But it is English usage that is idiosyncratic. I'm suggesting that for technical purposes we should make it less so.
A perfectly reasonable thing to do. It would be an appropriate thing to do even if we agreed that the definition we are using was only intended for this thread. The alternative is to give up on discussing some concepts in English.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-26-2012 9:42 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2012 2:24 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 93 of 215 (657066)
03-25-2012 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
03-25-2012 10:38 AM


Well, you seem to have brought your own reductio ad absurdum, which is usually my job, so I don't know what I'm meant to do here. When you yourself admit, nay, insist, that according to your definition of "see", I have seen the Loch Ness Monster, then I have supplied you with the rope, and you have been good enough to hang yourself with it. My work is done.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2012 10:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2012 6:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 215 (657090)
03-25-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2012 1:59 PM


When you yourself admit, nay, insist, that according to your definition of "see", I have seen the Loch Ness Monster
Now everyone who's reading this post has seen the Loch Ness Monster.
I don't see what's so absurd about it. You've seen the Loch Ness Monster just the same way you've seen Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. If you adamantly insisted that you had not seen Mickey Mouse, people would wonder where you had grown up because see means other things besides "direct observation, in-person."
Have you really not seen Mickey Mouse? Not ever? It seems like the one in the noose is you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 1:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 11:15 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 03-26-2012 1:38 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 95 of 215 (657100)
03-25-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ookuay
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory?
In their defense, evolution has not, as of yet, reached Alabama - macro or otherwise.
"We want our thumbs!"
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ookuay, posted 02-02-2012 8:10 PM ookuay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 96 of 215 (657113)
03-25-2012 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
03-25-2012 6:29 PM


Now everyone who's reading this post has seen the Loch Ness Monster.
No ... they ... haven't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2012 6:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 97 of 215 (657114)
03-26-2012 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
03-25-2012 6:29 PM


Now everyone who's reading this post has seen the Loch Ness Monster.
Didn't know it was gay. Interesting.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2012 6:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 98 of 215 (657137)
03-26-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by NoNukes
03-25-2012 12:08 PM


Let's assume that crashfrog is exactly correct about the sloppiness of the English language, and that "seeing" atoms perfectly well describes watching the visual display of a STM.
The word "seeing" can be used that way, but the topic of this thread is "witnessing" in the context of whether or not anyone has witnessed macroevolution.
In that sense, I would think witnessing implies 1) the thing actually exists (so Mickey Mouse is out) and 2) that you're seeing it "with your own eyes"
If not, then bam:
...we've all witnessed macroevolution and this thread can be closed.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to work for the creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 12:08 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 215 (657269)
03-27-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2012 11:15 PM


No ... they ... haven't.
Have you seen Mickey Mouse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 11:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Panda, posted 03-27-2012 9:10 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 10:33 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 12:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 215 (657271)
03-27-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
03-26-2012 9:42 AM


Somehow, I don't think that's going to work for the creationists.
Well, sure, but that's because when they say that "macroevolution is fish turning into rabbits", or whatever, their mental notion is that this all happens to a single organism; that there was actually one fish that suddenly grew hair and long ears.
People look at that diagram of yours - monkey to man - and if they don't think about it too hard, they see it as a single monkey standing up and turning into a man. That's why "millions of years" doesn't make any sense to them; they know organisms don't live that long. (Except when they do.)
It's a fairly sophisticated mode of thought, requiring the simultaneous mental modeling of a large number of things, to view evolution not as something that happens to a single organism, or that happens in a single organism reproducing, but that happens as populations change and grow - as described statistically, stoichometrically - over long periods of time. It took me a long time to understand that, longer still to learn how to describe it to others. (I've probably not, in this post, succeeded.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-26-2012 9:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 9:51 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 101 of 215 (657274)
03-27-2012 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
03-27-2012 8:47 AM


Have you seen my neighbour?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:47 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 215 (657275)
03-27-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
03-27-2012 8:53 AM


Well, sure, but that's because when they say that "macroevolution is fish turning into rabbits", or whatever, their mental notion is that this all happens to a single organism; that there was actually one fish that suddenly grew hair and long ears.
Yup, and if they had a more proper image of macroevolution (like the one I linked to above from Biology Online), I still think there'd be a point that people haven't really witnessed macroevolution. As something that takes place over long periods of time, you can't point to it and say: "there, there it is, that's macroevolution". Now, I realize you might wanna count the arrival of a new species of bacteria as technically being macroevolution, and you could argue that we could point to that and witness it, but I don't really think that's what people are talking about. Its more about gross morphological change. Something that undeniably evolution in a loose sense. As you say:
quote:
as populations change and grow - as described statistically, stoichometrically - over long periods of time.
I don't think you can witness that happening, do you?
You guys are getting hung up on what "seeing" means, when the topic is witnessing. I don't think its right to say that you've witnessed Mickey Mouse, although you can use the verb 'to see', to say that you've seen him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:53 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 11:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2012 2:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 103 of 215 (657279)
03-27-2012 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
03-27-2012 8:47 AM


Have you seen Mickey Mouse?
But Mickey Mouse is in fact, nothing more than a series of drawings. I have seen some of those drawings and that is all Mickey Mouse is. So yes, I've seen Mickey Mouse. I suppose we may also stipulate that Mickey Mouse has a certain voice, so when I hear a voice artist do the Mickey Mouse voice in the context of an officially sanctioned cartoon - I could claim to have 'heard Mickey Mouse'.
However, it would be misleading to say 'I have seen King Henry VIII', when all I have seen is a portrait or three of his. Since Henry VIII is more than just a series of portraits, I could only really say 'I've seen portraits of Henry VIII'.
Just as when I say 'I have seen HMS Belfast' I'm almost never referring to pictures of HMS Belfast. HMS Belfast is something more than a series of photographs.
Topicwise, I've not actually seen the populations of early primates evolving into a population of human beings, even though I have used my eyes to examine some of the evidence that this is in fact what happened.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 11:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 215 (657289)
03-27-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
03-27-2012 9:51 AM


I don't think you can witness that happening, do you?
Yeah, I think you can, particularly when generational times are fairly low (like 40 minutes or so.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 9:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 1:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 105 of 215 (657290)
03-27-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Modulous
03-27-2012 10:33 AM


However, it would be misleading to say 'I have seen King Henry VIII', when all I have seen is a portrait or three of his.
I don't think it would be misleading, because I don't think anyone would think that you were claiming to be a time traveler. Similarly, people talking about 9/11 reminisce about what they were thinking when they "saw the twin towers fall", irrespective of whether they were actually at Ground Zero when that happened. Most people making that statement watched it happen on TV, even in New York.
"See" has a pretty expansive definition that includes nearly all forms of optical prosthesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 10:33 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 12:28 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 1:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024