|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abductive Reasoning In Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Actually, evolution itself doesn't claim this. But it is (more or less) what we infer from the evidence. (There are some significant complications at the very root of the tree, but I don't think that they are important now).
quote: Evidence that something HAS happened is evidence that it could.
quote: Well, we'll go with that for now, but the outcome of the rules are not always predictable even in quite simple physical systems (see Chaos theory).
quote: So the tree structures we observe in taxonomy and genetics would qualify, correct ? And we can predict that any new lifeform discovered will fit into those trees correct ? And they do. So there you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
So the tree structures we observe in taxonomy and genetics would qualify, correct ? And we can predict that any new lifeform discovered will fit into those trees correct ? And they do.
====================================\ That's actually where your misconception coming from. Whatever evidence you have for a plant, 1) it can't be a proof of ALL PlANTS!!!2) it can't be a proof of NON PLANTS such as animals this is your fallacy applied, Because a species of plants evolved, such that all plants must have evolved from a single cell. ----------------Evidence that something HAS happened is evidence that it could. ==================== "that it could" means, 1) it is not science. Science is much more than just showing that "it could" 2) "it could" is almost a faith statement demanding faith to believe (it's not scientific anyway). The fallacy you have to apply here is, Because 'it could' such that 'it must be'. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Of course we are not talking about just A plant. We are talking about ALL earthly life. We may not have the genetic data for every known species, but we do have the data used for taxonomy. So the fallacy is yours, as shown by your dismissal of evidence you can't even understand.
quote: Of course the fallacy is yours. You claimed that there was no evidence that it could happen. My point is that we have evidence that it did happen - which is evidence that it could happen. And it is certainly not fallacious to say that evidence that something did happen is evidence that it happened. Indeed to claim otherwise - as you do - is to reject all logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
we have evidence that it did happen
============================= show me then! What evidence do you have for any species evolved from a single cell. 1) show me the evidence how a human is evolved from a single cell2) or mammals 3) or birds 4) or reptiles 5) or fishes 6) or insets Or just compile a full list of what you have evidence of evolution from a single cell. Over 99.99% species, you don't have the evidence of how they evolved from a single cell. All you have (as said in my first post) is at best the "evidence" of discrete advancements to qualify a genetic change. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I've already told you what that evidence is. For instance we might point out the eukaryotic cell - ALL animals and ALL plants have this form of cell. There are single celled eukaryotes, too. Or another, aside from minor variations, the genetic code is the same in ALL DNA-based life. And there is more, much more uniting all life. Taxonomy and genetics speak to the truth of common ancestry of all life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
ALL animals and ALL plants have this form of cell. There are single celled eukaryotes, too
====== Jesus Christ. Answer me! Such that all of human must have been evolved from a single cell? You call that a justified proof? It's a joke. "Because ALL animals and ALL plants have this form of cell such that they must have been evolved from a single cell". It is the exact statement showing where your fallacy is! Whatever you found in common to living organism won't justify the conclusion that they must be from a single cell! To debate with your kind is just like debating with a log. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Except, of course I told you that these were examples of the EVIDENCE not proof in themselves. So your "fallacy" is simply your own invention. Now are you going to discuss the matter honestly ? Or are you going to simply go on with your refusal to even understand the evidence and the arguments ? Because I have better things to do than with my time trying to spoon feed you arguments and facts that you can't be bothered to listen to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
Now are you going to discuss the matter honestly ?
===================================== My only question for you is that is this is a fallacy or not. If you are not sure, please ask your peer evolutionists or any scientists to make sure. It is because the whole discussion is completely meaningless because you failed to realize that it is a fallacy!
"Because ALL animals and ALL plants have this form of cell such that they must have been evolved from a single cell" .. . Now are you going to discuss the matter honestly ? That's question for yourself to answer! On the other hand, the discussion continue if you honestly keep throwing fallacies after fallacies. The first and foremost answer honestly that where the above highlighted statement is a fallacy or not, YES or NO! Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There is really no need to ask anyone. Of course the silly statement that you made up is a fallacy. That is why you made it up.
quote: Of course that is not true. You can't even present my objections to your misrepresentations honestly.
quote: By which you mean "fallacies" like the Law of Identity, one of the basic axioms of logic... And I think that says it all. If all you are going to do is invent "fallacies" to avoid honest discussion there is no point in talking to you. I leave you to your false and anti-Christian faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Hawkins writes: Now are you going to discuss the matter honestly ? That's question for yourself to answer! On the other hand, the discussion continue if you honestly keep throwing fallacies after fallacies. The first and foremost answer honestly that where the above highlighted statement is a fallacy or not, YES or NO! Perhaps he knows the difference between abductive reasoning and deductive proofs. Perhaps he understands science, and the subject of this thread. Do you understand why it is wrong to ask for deductive proofs of scientific theories? Do you understand the subject of this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
Do you understand why it is wrong to ask for deductive proofs of scientific theories? Do you understand the subject of this thread?
======================================== Do you know the reason why I made my first post? It's because I saw misconceptions. I already said I was trying to correct some misconceptions which I think will be beneficial to the discussion itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
Of course that is not true. You can't even present my objections to your misrepresentations honestly.
================= On the other hand, you misinterpret my meaning in the first place. I said there's no evidence to justify that things are evolved from a single cell. Anything you can present is related to a fallacy which I exposed. For things to be evolved from a single cell, you need to first define how many stages does this species need to be evolved from a single cell to its current state in order to address which piece of evidence is in support of what stage of the evolution. Such as what evidenced how every organs are formed in the stage of organ forming and so forth. That's what my original post would like to say, whether it's abductive or deductive. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Look Hawkins, I get it. No matter what I say you won't bother to read it, you'll just misrepresent it to invent some "fallacy".
That doesn't make you right, it makes you a waste of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You keep on using the words "proof" and "fallacy". This thread is about abductive reasoning.
Do you even know what abductive reasoning is....? Perhaps you could tell us what you think it is? Then it might become more obvious to the rest of us why you think demands of proof and talk of fallacies are relevant here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
On the other hand, you misinterpret my meaning in the first place. I said there's no evidence to justify that things are evolved from a single cell. The idea that all life evolved from a single organism is common descent. Common descent is not required to be correct for evolution to be correct and there could be several lines of evolution at the root of the tree. There are other problems with your position. For example you attempt to outline steps required in the proof, but of course there are alternative lines of evidence that don't include your requirements. The main issue with your post, though, is that it is off topic. There are threads open in which your ideas would be on topic, and I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss your points in detail in one of them.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. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024