Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Hi sensei,You seem to have got yourself stuck in another meta-debate instead of tackling the evolution debate itself. A lot of creationist posters fall into that trap. They come here to debate creation and evolution, but they soon find themselves discussing such vital issues as "Are EVC posters a big bunch of meanies?" or "Who's the biggest liar?", to the point where they might as well be debating "Who's got the smelliest bum?". It's a shame, because it's a complete waste of time. He has. We all have. The definitions are pretty much as they have been described to you.I have to ask though; have you looked them up? Where did you receive your education on the subject of Philosophy of Science? Where were you taught the scientific method? Was it a university? A school? A book? Where are you getting your information from? Because your position is an extremely idiosyncratic one. Your stance is in opposition to every single source I can find. Can't help but wonder where you're getting this from. Because a person could be forgiven for thinking that you have no familiarity with the subject and you've pulled this naive piffle directly out of your ass. But that can't be right surely? Can you share your sources with us? You must have got these... let's just say "ideas"... from somewhere? Where?I only ask because if we use your definitions, your idiosyncratic version of the scientific method... the Theory of Evolution is a fact. An absolute fact. By your definitions. By everybody else's definitions, the ones used by actual scientists (as opposed to angry fifteen year old boys ranting on the internet) the ToE is a theory, held tentatively, but with an extremely high degree of confidence. But in your model, the model where we make a bunch of observations, decide that we can't imagine how things could possibly be different and then decide, arbitrarily, that we've found a universal fact, by that method... the ToE is as sure and certain a fact as could possibly exist. Thing is though, your example sucks. It's a shitty analogy.Your example, a die, is just an observation and a rather banal, logically circuitous one at that. It's not a theory. A theory would seek to explain the observation. It would seek to explain why you always see what you see. It would seek to explain the underlying mechanisms. Your example does none of this. It is just an observation.Now in the philosophy of science, observations can be regarded as facts. Theories then seek to explain those facts. Observations are local, but theories are universal. That's why theories are held tentatively, because whilst they seek to be universal in scope, we cannot possibly observe the entire universe, unless you've found a way. Have you got a way to observe the entire universe sensei? Including the past and future? Or are you actually subject to the same limits on empiricism and inductive logic as the rest of us? You mean like you did on the Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment? thread? Because four months later I'm still waiting for a reply to Message 502. You remember? The one where I demonstrated that all your "facts" were complete rubbish? Where I showed how your dumb questions only served to reveal your woeful ignorance of the subject matter? Yeah, that one. Or perhaps you might like to answer Message 501 from Percy? I'm sure he'd be thrilled to receive a reply!Any time you like kid, any time.Mutate and Survive

Your bad habit of banging out a knee-jerk response in seconds is probably your biggest obstacle to sensible discussion. You might want to get into the habit of thinking before you type. Yes, obviously. Because I broadly agree with him, as does every single scientific expert or institution I've ever encountered. We might phrase or emphasise things a little differently, but in essence everyone is agreed; empirical science is limited by our ability to observe the physical universe and by the limits of inductive logic., thus conclusions must be tentative.Or we could go along with your method, which would force us to the conclusion that the ToE is absolute fact. That's because your statements are asinine and betray a total ignorance of the topic. It's because your "example" isn't analogous to real empirical science, it's just an inane logical syllogism based on wordplay and circular reasoning. Your "example" states little more than "If X is always X, then X is always X", which wasn't ever in question.Have you found a way to observe the entirety of space and time? Because if not, the type of logic you're attempting to use - deductive logic - doesn't work with empirical science. This is so well known and so universally accepted that it's just bizarre to see you argue the toss.Again, where are you getting this from? Can you show us any respectable source that agrees with your position?If not, we're left with no option but to assume that you are pulling all of this right out of your arse. Yes, yes. And you have a smelly bum. Your bum smells. It smells of poo.Understanding through discussion ladies and gentlemen!Mutate and Survive

Percy is allowed to make whatever kind of analogies he likes, I'm not his Mum.Anyway, it's not a bad analogy, it's actually rather a good analogy, just from a very slightly different perspective that the one I outlined in Message 1024. I never said that the "observation as fact" approach was my own hard and fast opinion on the matter; I think that it's a nuanced subject and that there are multiple reasonable ways of approaching the topic. Yours isn't one of them though. Yours is just broken.So I'm going to ask you again;Can you observe the entire universe throughout all space and time? If not, how are you supposed to know whether you've got all the relevant data or not?Can you back up your claims about the scientific method with any credible source? And given that you definitely can't, will you ever acknowledge that you have no sources?Come on sensei, you can do better than these content-free messages. You've actually staked out a position for once, don't you want to defend it?Mutate and Survive

Hi WookieeB,I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick mate.I'm not saying that the ToE actually is "an absolute fact" in the strictest sense of that term. That is not my opinion. It is a theory, held tentatively, but nonetheless at a very high level of confidence. That is both my opinion and the standard position amongst scientists.I am simply following sensei's absurd and scientifically illiterate argument to its logical conclusion, reductio ad absurdum if you will. He seems to think that we can make a bunch of observations, decide that we know enough and - bingo! - absolute fact! This is, of course, a misreading of the scientific method. sensei clearly isn't familiar with the subject. I'm just trying, in vain, to get him to see that. It hardly matters. Any definition you chose could be "proved" by sensei's unscientific method. That's the point; his method doesn't work.Mutate and Survive

Your dice example. That is the point of the example no? You are showing us how science can produce 100% knowledge, AKA absolute truth. If that wasn't the point I can't imagine why you said it.Unpacking this, all you have done here is:a) Make a bunch of observations of dice,b) use those observations to conclude that you have "100%" knowledge.I don't think that's a useful way to approach knowledge. It's illogical and impractical. It ignores too many confounding factors. For instance, how many observations should you make? Is ten enough? A thousand? A trillion? How do you determine that? How would you know if you had insufficient observations? You wouldn't and you can't, not unless you can observe all space and time, which you can't. You are essentially discounting the theoretical possibility that there exists a falsifying observation that you haven't thought of. How exactly is anyone supposed to correct for a confounding variable that they can't even comprehend or simply haven't thought of? You can't. The approach you use in your dice analogy. And yes, it is broken. All you are doing is coming to an arbitrary conclusion based on an incomplete sampling of data and then treating that as absolute fact. There are multiple problems with this approach:You can't observe the whole of space, so you cannot possibly know, with 100% certainty, that you have collected all the relevant data. For all you know, there could be an as yet unobserved falsification out there. This matters because science does seek to create explanations which apply equally to the entire universe, not just our local area.The same with the past and, even more so, the future. You cannot possibly know, with 100% certainty, that your observations would have been the same in the distant past (particularly the very early universe) and you cannot possibly know if your claim will continue to hold true in the future. This matters because science does seek to create explanations which apply equally to the past and the future.How do you know your observations were accurate? For all you know there could be some confounder that you have failed to even imagine, let alone correct for.How do you know that the universe itself is even real? How do we know that we're not living in matrix/a brain in a jar/ being tricked by a demon, etcetera? To be clear, I'm not saying that I think we are in the Matrix, or that this is a big concern, but it is still a proposition which cannot be 100% disproved, thus it creates a little window of doubt.For these and other reasons, the approach you outline does not work. You are claiming 100% certainty, but you cannot demonstrate it. That creates a system prone to producing false positives, a broken system.I am extremely confident that your example with rolling a die would hold true wherever and whenever you tested it, but if I am to remain intellectually honest, I have no choice but to concede the above points and accept that my conclusions, however well supported they may appear to be, must always contain that tiny element of doubt, hence, tentativity. Oh Lord the irony.I wasn't calling you illiterate. I said you were scientifically illiterate an entirely different thing.For the record, I have no interest in attacking you over trivial linguistic errors. It's petty, it's childish and it doesn't address the actual argument. Harping on spelling errors and obvious typos is a child's way of arguing.I did call you scientifically illiterate though and I stand by that. This conversation would go a lot easier if you did a bit of basic reading up on the scientific method and the philosophy of science. The way you speak, it's as if you never encountered these concepts before. Similarly, when you talk about natural history, you throw out schoolboy howlers and bizarre falsehoods. You don't really seem to know much about the natural world. And when you talk about evolution, you betray numerous misunderstandings of how the ToE is even supposed to work, misunderstandings that could be avoided by familiarising yourself with the basics of the topic. I know this is not exactly flattering, but given the stuff you come out with, I can't reach any other conclusion. If you don't want your views to be misrepresented, you might try outlining them properly, rather than relying on low-content, low-effort one or two sentence posts. How is anyone supposed to know what you think, you barely say anything!Go take a look at your recent posts. Hit that link on the left hand side, the one that says "sensei posts only" and take a look at what you post. The vast majority of it is one, two or maybe as many as three lines of text. Maybe five whole sentences, but usually less, including the spectacular Message 1030, a message which contains literally nothing!. And to make it worse, a large part of what you do post is just you kvetching, sneering and bitching about spelling errors or other trivial crap. Assuming that you have a point to make, how do you expect to make it carrying on like this? I know you can do better because on rare occasions you have actually put in the effort. Speaking of which; If my characterisation of your position is wrong, then, as Percy and Tangle have suggested, this is your opportunity to lay out your position in enough detail that it can't be misunderstood.What is your understanding of how the scientific method functions?What is your understanding of the role of tentativity in science?Lay it out for us dude. The only person standing the way of you getting your point across is you.Mutate and Survive