Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2017 2:12 AM
362 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, granpa, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Rrhain (5 members, 357 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: willietern
Happy Birthday: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 821,016 Year: 25,622/21,208 Month: 1,249/2,338 Week: 6/364 Day: 6/57 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   What is missing from the theory of evolution
DC85
Member
Posts: 874
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


(1)
Message 61 of 68 (686173)
12-29-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by kofh2u
12-29-2012 2:42 PM


Re: Directed Evolution -- not testable philosophic hypothesis
all judgments and perceptions reflect the workings of our mind on two levels: the conscious, of which we are aware, and the unconscious, which is hidden from us.

Except for the fact it's far more complex then conscious and unconscious. We have behaviors that are normal and observed throughout the majority of people that can be shown to be the result of reactions in the brain. None of them are "Hidden from us."

Then we have unconscious behaviors that started as conscious behavior that through the course of our minds "reward system" become "habits" these literally carve out new pathways in the brain. We do not observe this same pathway reaction with instinct behavior meaning learned behavior cannot be inherited.

I also would like to recommend a book called "The Power of Habit" by Charles Duhigg. It likely the easiest way I've seen it explained

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kofh2u, posted 12-29-2012 2:42 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Larni, posted 12-29-2012 3:33 PM DC85 has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(3)
Message 62 of 68 (686174)
12-29-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by kofh2u
12-29-2012 2:09 PM


Re: Directed Evolution
The next step in the scientific Method when applied to Experimental Psychology, or any other field of scientific inquiry, is to find exactly that, some empirical evidence that the idea is credible

This, of course is untrue.

One tries to break H1 and accept H0. If you can't reject H0 to a specified P value you have tentatively supported your H1.

Where did you learn science, the Jamie and the Magic Torch School of Fantasy?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by kofh2u, posted 12-29-2012 2:09 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(3)
Message 63 of 68 (686175)
12-29-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by DC85
12-29-2012 3:26 PM


Re: Directed Evolution -- not testable philosophic hypothesis
Except for the fact it's far more complex then conscious and unconscious.

Exactly.

As an aside, Freud and Jung did not have the training to explore in a systematic way (such as in social or behavioural psychology).

Freud took a population of morbid subjects, took observations and derived unsubstantiated conclusions.

Modern people with any knowledge of psychology know this. How telling that K does not.

Edited by Larni, : Wrong target of message


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by DC85, posted 12-29-2012 3:26 PM DC85 has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 64 of 68 (686198)
12-29-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
12-29-2012 2:16 PM


Re: Directed Evolution -- not testable philosophic hypothesis

Hi Kofh2u,

Curiously, it is a philosophical hypothesis that I agree with,...

I can note that it is untestable, that there is no empirical evidence that invalidates the concept, and I can wait for further evidence while remaining theistically agnostic (agnostically theistic?).

Hi Mr RAZD,

I would add more to the concept of the Unconscious mind as an active agent in our decision making process which sort of transcends the Ages, and unknown to us, "Rules Your Behavior" as a species.

I would suggest that we consider the Collective Unconscious mind which unlike our own Unconscious mind, is god-like and technically immortal since the Collective Unconscious does NOT die, but remains with the Living where it had been before our birth and will continue to exist after our death.

This reminds me of the amazement expressed by Adam Smith when he marveled at what he called The Invisible Hand of Economics, wherein prices adjust, almost instantaneously, in regard to Supply and Demand without any evidence that communications had been involved at all.

I would add the hypothesis that the power of the Collective Unconscious mind extends to one person's Unconscious communicating with an others, as if they were whales talking through Oceans by a communications medium still unknown to us.

This of course would explain clairvoyance and such extra sensory phenomenon that has been wonder at and investigated in every generation through out History.

There has been evidence that this is possible stemming out of encephalographic research about brain waves. They have been able to record brain activity without actually making conductors contact on the skull.
There are electromagnetic waves emitted when we think.
These waves will not disappear once they have been produced, but will travel as does the light from a source after the source has been turned off.

It would seem possible for resonance to occur when large numbers of people are on the same page of thought, for instance.

This makes me think about the religious concept of power in prayers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2012 2:16 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Eli, posted 12-30-2012 1:46 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19092
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 65 of 68 (686207)
12-29-2012 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by kofh2u
12-29-2012 2:42 PM


Re: Directed Evolution -- not testable philosophic hypothesis
Hi kofh2u,

1) I guess if the hypothesis is discarded because no empirical evidence can be found to support it, you would de facto have a good argument against, in regard to thereafter being science.

But that is not sufficient reason to discard the hypothesis ... it just means that insufficient information is available. Likewise if there is no information found that contradicts the hypothesis, then it has not been tested by such information. What you have is an hypothesis that is neither supported nor invalidated nor tested. You need to wait for more information (or look for more information) before you can get out of the starting gate.

2) But I was referring to the first step in what is calld The Scientific Method.

The investigation of some observable phenomenon or anotber always begins with an idea, one that my have been brain stromed along with a number of others.
Do we agree on this or will you google scientific method and check me out?

Already done on another thread (there are variations in the description):

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... The scientific method has four steps

  1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
  2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
  3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
  4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.


(bold added)

Key here, imho, is that it is not a scientific theory until these four steps have been done, and the hypothesis proves useful in predicting new knowledge. Not having done any experiments that test the falsifiability of the hypothesis means it is an untested or untestable hypothesis. An untestable hypothesis (as we have here) means it cannot be scientific hypothesis that generates predictions.

A similar view is seen here:

Background research precedes the hypothesis, and it involves objective empirical data where you know that the hypothesis is true, because you have derived the hypothesis from the data. Even when you start with a question, that is not the hypothesis, it structures how you do your background research to then use to derive your hypothesis.

Again from the above link:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. ...

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. ...

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. ... The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."


Again, we see that the scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that produces consistent positive results, and again we see that the hypothesis rests on cases of objective empirical evidence where the derived hypothesis is known to be true.

Do you agree with this?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kofh2u, posted 12-29-2012 2:42 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by kofh2u, posted 12-30-2012 9:43 AM RAZD has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 66 of 68 (686228)
12-30-2012 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by kofh2u
12-29-2012 6:27 PM


Re: Directed Evolution -- not testable philosophic hypothesis
Yeah, you aren't talking about the collective unconscious here.

Obviously the two words together invoke a certain image for you in which you have created your own meaning.

Ironically this very fact disproves your version of what the collective unconscious is, because the answer is out there and you have no idea what it is.

What you are talking about has nothing to do with Jung or the true concept of a collective unconscious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by kofh2u, posted 12-29-2012 6:27 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 67 of 68 (686245)
12-30-2012 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
12-29-2012 8:17 PM


No, fellows, Freud/Jung was a Psychology giant...

But that is not sufficient reason to discard the hypothesis ... it just means that insufficient information is available. Likewise if there is no information found that contradicts the hypothesis, then it has not been tested by such information. What you have is an hypothesis that is neither supported nor invalidated nor tested. You need to wait for more information (or look for more information) before you can get out of the starting gate.

1) With all due respect, Mr RADZ, you are agreeing with me here in that such Hypothesis IS as I said, Science, de facto it is part of the Scientific Method to which I referred.

As a hypothesis, in may await some experimental proof in order to move ahead in accord with that Scientific Method, but, nevertheless, it is still within the realm of th discipline as I had stated.

i.e.; you now correct yourself here.
Right?

2) Your second point, which is your mere opinion, one of your own making, states that:

"Key here, imho, is that it is not a scientific theory until these four steps have been done, and the hypothesis proves useful in predicting new knowledge. Not having done any experiments that test the falsifiability of the hypothesis means it is an untested or untestable hypothesis. An untestable hypothesis (as we have here) means it cannot be scientific hypothesis that generates predictions."

This of course would deny the credit to Democritus for having hypothesized the Atomism we took so long to discover evidence in its support as an Atomic Theory.

I am apparently more liberal than you, holding that ideas that seem to have merit continue to be science Hypothesis however slow the discipline may prove to be in substantiating them further.

3) I do not disagree because it is not important beyond supporting my initial claim, that a Hypothesis is without evidence in every case until such evidence makes the idea an acceptable Theory.

My remarks had been in rebuttal to criticism of the hypotheses of Freud and Jung, and the attempt to denigrate those ideas simply because they were, then unsupported by enough evidence to transform those ideas in a Theory.

\[B\]My responses here are all directed at those foolish denigrating comments made about those first early steps into modern Psychology.
Those posters fail to ridicule and dismiss those ideas now better understood and supported by harder evidence.

Re: "Again, we see that the scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that produces consistent positive results, and again we see that the hypothesis rests on cases of objective empirical evidence where the derived hypothesis is known to be true.

Do you agree with this?

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2012 8:17 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 12-30-2012 3:21 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19092
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 68 of 68 (686260)
12-30-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by kofh2u
12-30-2012 9:43 AM


science method needs more than initial hypothesis -- perhaps pigs can fly?
Hi kofh2u

1) With all due respect, Mr RADZ, you are agreeing with me here in that such Hypothesis IS as I said, Science, de facto it is part of the Scientific Method to which I referred.

As a hypothesis, in may await some experimental proof in order to move ahead in accord with that Scientific Method, but, nevertheless, it is still within the realm of th discipline as I had stated.

i.e.; you now correct yourself here.
Right?

No.

The hypothesis that pigs can fly is not a scientific hypothesis until it is used to make predictions to test the validity of the concept, and it isn't a matter of waiting to see if pigs fly.

It IS a matter of predicting what would be needed for pigs to fly to see if they can then be tested for having the necessary attributes.

A philosophical hypothesis doesn't make empirically testable predictions because it is untestable.

What distinguishes a scientific hypothesis from a philosophical one is testability\falsifiability. Now it may be that the testing has not been performed yet, however this is still different from an hypothesis with no test predictions.

This of course would deny the credit to Democritus for having hypothesized the Atomism we took so long to discover evidence in its support as an Atomic Theory.

He (and Leucippus) formed a philosophical hypothesis and did not propose any means to test it. It was common in the time of the Greek philosophers to make hypothesis about the natural world, and many of them were contradictory, and many were incorrect, and none of them were tested against objective empirical evidence. They used logic and did not use evidence, another point that distinguishes philosophy from science.

I am apparently more liberal than you, holding that ideas that seem to have merit continue to be science Hypothesis however slow the discipline may prove to be in substantiating them further.

And you could be "more liberal" by holding that astrology is a scientific hypothesis, but that would not make it so, it would just demonstrate a lack of understanding in what is or is not a scientific hypothesis.

An hypothesis leaves the realm of general (philosophical + scientific) hypothetical concepts and becomes a scientific hypothesis when it makes predictions to properly, definitively and uniquely test the validity\falsifiability of the concept. This prediction needs to be something necessary for the hypothesis to be true.

For instance we can predict that if pigs fly that there must then necessarily be a means for them to fly, things not necessary for non-flying pigs, so we could predict that we would find pigs with:

  1. wings AND/OR
  2. jet propulsion (explosive farts?) AND/OR
  3. balloon organs filled with light gas (hydrogen?)

Finding one or more of these mechanisms would be validation for the hypothesis.

We can also predict that if pigs cannot fly, that throwing one off the empire state building would result in an impact of pig on the street-scape below. This test would need to be repeated to ensure that a defective or undeveloped pig was not chosen by accident for the test -- perhaps they can only fly within a certain age bracket for instance.

These are now things that can be tested to see if it is feasible\valid to think that pigs can fly.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by kofh2u, posted 12-30-2012 9:43 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017