|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Zift Ylrhavic Resfear | |||||||
| Percy | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member Posts: 398 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: I certainly wasn't trying to nitpick. My point was that his choice of words reflected reality in a way that falsification purists would reject. It generally takes both data and improved theory to bring down a successful theory, not just data. A theory that's being advanced for the first time, without a track record of successful predictions and fruitful hypotheses, is more readily falsified. A classic example of falsification in action was the search for proton decay, which was predicted by minimal grand unified theories of particle physics. The theory made clear predictions, experiments were built (at great cost) to test the predictions, the results differed from the predictions (no proton decay was observed), and the theory was dropped. It was very Popperian: conjecture and refutation.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member Posts: 398 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: I think we're all in agreement on that point. (If I weren't, I wouldn't have written "Yes, scientific theories do indeed have to be testable" in one of my replies above.)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member  Posts: 14335 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
We can refine that to being roughly an oblate spheroid ... in the end we'd end up with a variable shape depending on the position of the moon and sun ... and hot spots and ... (I don't think there is a single shape involved eh?). Each step of the way we move closer to what in reality exists. Yes we can definitely rule out flat, it has been invalidated. Invalidation means that we no longer need to consider a flat earth within the realm of possible reality, as we hone in on what that reality is.
It seems to me that you are arguing that they didn't make any changes at all to accommodate the data while pointing out that they made changes to accommodate the data. What part of evaluating all the elements that go into the prediction that did not come to pass to see where the error in making the prediction came from is NOT covered by what happened? This includes all theories involved. Of course the more theories that are involved in a prediction can muddy the picture of which theory is falsified by a failed prediction -- this is the fault of using multiple theories before they have been validated than the fault of the theory.
My quibble is that some being used (especially in physics it seems to me) are without sufficient validation to qualify as more than a hypothesis and this leaves the structure more like a house of cards so you don't really know which card caused the house to fall. There is a difference in degree when using theories that have passed many prediction invalidation tests to build new theories and in using new ones that are barely out of the box.
And you have failed to make your point. Repeating your assertion does not make it any more valid. The example you provided showed that invalidation occurred when the data did not match the prediction, that a change in a theory was made as a result. It was not the one that was used to make the prediction but it still occurred. Bad information was still ruled out and we are more honed in to what the possibility of reality is than before. We also still end up with the point that IF they had not found any error in the foundation and structure of the house of cards that the top theory that was the source of the prediction would have been falsified by the data. Now they need to make new predictions to test the validity of the theories and see where that leads us in the quest for knowledge of reality. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member Posts: 398 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: So are you saying we can validate things in science, or not? Previously you claimed that validation was problematic in ways that invalidation was not. Is that true or not? quote: You don't appear to be addressing anything I wrote. I have never claimed that scientists don't make changes in response to data. What I claim is that disproof suffers from the same uncertainty as proof. That's all. All conclusions of science are tentative, including the conclusion that a theory has been falsified. In this case, it is still possible that the secondary data about neutrinos was also misinterpreted, as a result of yet another theory being wrong. Falsification is not a magic bullet in science. quote: Your quibble appears out of place here, since (as I already pointed out), the theory is question was the best tested in the history of physics. quote: ?? You again seem to be arguing against a point I'm not making. The original claim was about testing a theory against data. In this case, a test of a particular theory was made and the theory failed, in exactly the way that is supposed to falsify a theory, and that theory was not falsified. Data that contradicts a theory may not falsify it. In this case it was another theory that was falsified; in other cases it's poor understanding of the precise behavior of the experimental apparatus that is to blame. My point is not that science doesn't change in response to data, but that simplistic formulations about how science changes in response to data are misleading.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member Posts: 14335 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I use validated for theories that have been tested by predictions that they have passed: This is distinct from proof. You can falsify - disprove - theories you cannot prove them. The theory that the world is less than 10,000 years old is proven false by the evidence of tree rings alone.
You have repeated this several times yet fail to see that results contradicting a prediction falsified A theory and that theory was changed. IF that had not occurred then the theory in question would be falsified. Failure to see that this is in fact the scientific process is just denial of the facts. Perhaps you have another example eh? Otherwise you are flogging a dead horse. The fact that you personally don't like the result has no bearing on the validity of the process. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member Posts: 398 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: I'll ask you again, since you ignored my question the first time. You maintain that the theory that the world is less than 10,000 years old has been proven false, and simultaneously maintain that the theory that the world is more than 10,000 years old has not been proven true. Is this an accurate statement of your position or not? It certainly seems to be an inevitable conclusion from your statements.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member Posts: 398 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: How can have I failed to see that the results falsified a theory when I stated exactly that? (And in the text you just quoted!) The question is whether you can ever know whether you've falsified the right theory. If contradictory evidence could be the result of a mistake in any of many theories, how will you ever know for certain that you've settled on the right one? How can you ever be absolutely certain (which seems to be your standard for something to be "proven") when you falsify a theory that some other theory isn't to blame for the discrepency? After all, you haven't proven any of them to be true. If you want to reserve "prove" for absolute certainty, than nothing in science is ever proven or disproven. If you disagree, please present any case where disproof is absolute. If, on the other hand, "proven" means shown with sufficient certainty that we can safely neglect the possibility of being wrong, than statements in science can be both proven and disproven. That the Earth is roughly spherical has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and with much greater certainty than is attached to many instances of falsification in science. quote: Sorry, but this is also wrong. Sometimes data contradict the predictions of a theory, and no theory is falsified. Take another neutrino case. Neutrinos were taken to be massless in the Standard Model. Two different kinds of experiments, with quite different techniques, produced data that were inconsistent with this model, and were instead consistent with neutrinos having a mass of 17 keV. At the end of the day, the theory of massless neutrinos was not falsified, and no other theory was falsified either. It turns out that both experimental systems had subtle features that were not adequately understood by the experimenters, and both coincidentally led to the same incorrect conclusion. quote: Don't like what result? What result do you think I don't like? Also, is would be useful if you were to provide any evidence at all in support for your claims. What is your evidence that science disproves but never proves?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member Posts: 14335 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
The evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years is what disproves the theory that the world is 10,000 years old.
That is not a theory, that is the evidence that disproves\invalidates the above theory. Evidence is not theory, it is fact. Facts disprove theory. Because of the evidence available, the theory on the age of the earth has been revised and currently is that it is 4.55 billion years old. This theory on the age of the earth is still not proven.
I thought you'd figure it out. Apparently you have been confused between evidence and theory. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member Posts: 14335 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Now you state:
We are still talking about the same issue, no other one has been introduced. This is called equivocation. My job is done, thank you for playing. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member Posts: 398 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: My recent statement: quote: Your comment: quote: Do you that little word that occurs before "theory" in the first quotation? It's "the", and it's called the definite article. It means the sentence is talking about a particular instance of something, as in "sometimes the particular theory being tested is changed". The second quotation uses a different, even shorter word, "a", which is known as the indefinite article. That one means that the sentence is talking about some member of a class, as in "one theory among many, but not the theory that was being tested, was falsified." The two quotations are perfectly consistent.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member Posts: 398 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: I see. According to you, "The Earth is less than 10,000 years old" is a theory, while "The Earth is more than 10,000 years old" is not a theory. Uh huh. You're right, your work here is done.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member Posts: 14335 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Correct. The theory "The Earth is less than 10,000 years old" is falsifiable (and falsified) while the statement "The Earth is more than 10,000 years old" is not falsifiable as it is a fact.
I'm glad you concede that. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Doddy Member (Idle past 1852 days)  Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Regardless, this is ust not the topic of this thread of mine. The "Is it Science?" section would be a good place to start a topic on this issue, as I see there is still a lot of enthusiasm for discussing it. So, I ask you all, to find another evolutionist argument that shouldn't be used, and give reasons. Let's see if we can put this thread back on track. Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member Posts: 398 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
1) "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems". This one has already been mentioned, but I'm not sure it's been pointed out that it's just plain wrong. The 2nd law applies to both open and closed systems just fine. (One particular formulation of the law, in terms of the change in entropy of the system, only applies to closed systems.) 2) "Human didn't descend from monkeys; monkeys and humans have a common ancestor." Humans aren't descended from any living monkey, but the common ancestor would have looked like a monkey and would be called a monkey by anyone who saw it -- so yeah, humans are descended from monkeys. 3) "Evolution is just the change in allele frequencies over time, and we've observed that, so of course evolution is true." This is a true statement, and is fine if made with the intention of explaining what scientists mean by evolution, but I've also seen it used in debate with someone who doubts common descent as if it scored points somehow. None of these is really a serious argument, however. I can't think of any bad ones at the moment.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
