|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: who was this 70s researcher who questioned evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2562 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
I don't know what thread you've been reading, but in this thread I was replying to the general statement, "Proving X to be false does not mean that Y is any more likely to be true." As far as I know, you can only prove something false if its probability isn't already zero. Therefore, your argument about the effect of new data on statements with a prior probability of zero is irrelevant. Yes, of course you can't reduce the probability if it's already zero; presumably, if the poster I was responding to had meant that, he or she would have said so, rather than making the statement in question.
quote:So far the data in your posts suggest otherwise. quote:In the complete absence of evidence, you would be able to assign a probability of zero to the idea that the earth was mounted on the back of turtles? On what basis? it's true that some people's belief in its truth would not mean anything, but neither would your disbelief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
As far as I know, you can only prove something false if its probability isn't already zero. I'm sure you know better than that. Something with zero probability of being true must be false, and can often (but not always) be proven to be false. People often need to be persuaded to drop erroneous beliefs, and one avenue for doing so is providing proof that their beliefs are contrary to the evidence. Can I prove that the number of degrees in a triangle in planar geometry is never greater than 2 right angles? Yes I can. Euclid in fact showed that the number of degrees in a triangle is always exactly equal to two right angles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2562 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Then you're using a completely different meaning of "probability" than I am, since I'm using probability to describe our knowledge of truth or falsehood. If something has not been proven to be false (either because of evidence or because it is a logical impossibility), we do not know it to be false, and therefore it cannot have a zero probability of being true. That's certainly the meaning that's appropriate to this context, since we're talking about how the probability of truth changes with new evidence. quote:I don't see your point here. What was the probability that the theorem was correct before Euclid proved it? Seriously, I don't know whether you think it was always equal to one or not. And what does this have to do with proving something false that's already known to be false? Getting back to the original point, do you agree that disproving X does make Y more likely, assuming Y is not already known to be false (and making the other assumptions I've already described)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You don't suppose they are referring to Stephen Jay Gould, based on creationists' quote mines?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I don't see your point here. What was the probability that the theorem was correct before Euclid proved it? Seriously, I don't know whether you think it was always equal to one or not. And what does this have to do with proving something false that's already known to be false? Already known by whom to be false? In this discussion between you and me, you believe that I am wrong. But the matter of which one of us is wroI don't see your point here. What was the probability that the theorem was correct before Euclid proved it? Seriously, I don't know whether you think it was always equal to one or not. And what does this have to do with proving something false that's already known to be false? Already known by whom to be false? In this discussion between you and me, you believe that I am wrong. But the matter of which one of us is wrong is not a matter of probability. One of us has already made a crucial reasoning error. The person whose arguments and premises are correct is right despite the other person's belief to the contrary. One of use is trying to convince other person that his belief is false. This discussion is an example of one of us trying to prove to the other that a proposition with zero likelihood of being correct is actually false. Of course my position is that I am the person trying to accomplish the task that you claim cannot be done. Namely proving false a proposition that has zero chance of being correct. Your proposition that there are probabilities that can be assigned to competing theories is in error. Propositions for truth do not work like selecting colored marbles in a bag, where taking out one colored marble changes the distribution of colors remaining. There are an infinite amount of propositions for which there is no evidence at all. Proving that Zeus did not exist does not add to any probability that Odin actually does. For example. Let's say that there are two people holding beliefs about the earth. One person believes that the earth is a flat disk riding on the backs of turtles and the other believing that the earth is flat and rides on the backs of elephants. A scientist tells the two people that he has evidence regarding the true nature of the earth. He calls the first person into a sound proof room and shows him convincing proof that the earth is not a disk riding on the back of turtles. Has the probability increased that the other proposition is true? Well the second person believes so when he sees the sad look on his colleague's face. But when he is called into the sound proof room the scientist shows the second person the same thing that he showed the first person. Absolute proof that the earth is spherical rather than disk shaped. So did disproving the first silly theory increase the probability that the second theory was true? No. Despite the hope that the second person felt when he saw the crestfallen face of the first person, both theories were completely discredited by the same evidence. Suppose instead the scientist had shown the first person proof that every turtle ever born or created was accounted for, and no turtles were available for the earth to ride on. That proof eliminates one theory, but does it increase some probability that the other theory is true? My guess is that you think so. What if instead the scientist provided convincing evidence that there is no air in space and that all reptiles and mammals required air to breathe, wouldn't you suggest that that knowledge decrease the odds that either man's proposition was correct? In fact, generally speaking we cannot assign probability that theories of reality are correct, and we cannot enumerate them. We can eliminate theories or classes of theories with evidence against a theory, but only evidence supporting a theory directly can give us increased confidence that any theory is correct.
Getting back to the original point, do you agree that disproving X does make Y more likely, assuming Y is not already known to be false (and making the other assumptions I've already described)? Of course not!! Not in the general case anyway. Without some info regarding the relationship between X and Y and the evidence for both, it's impossible to say how new facts will affect one proposition even if the facts absolutely rule out another proposition. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
If you two want to have an argument about whether frequentist or Bayesian statistical interpretations are more correct then that is probably the topic for a different thread surely?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2562 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined:
|
quote:I had come to the same conclusion (although it's not clear to me that a frequentist approach is actually being offered). I will propose a new topic when I have a chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Hi, I heard about a researcher of the 1970's. He came to the conclusion through his research, and he was the leading researcher in his time in his field, I think it had to do with genetics and evolution, that it is possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is false. The only person I can think of that fits this description is Lynn Margulis who pushed the idea of Endosymbiotic theory: Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi sfs,
This thread doesn't look likely to go anywhere interesting, so instead I'll challenge the above assertion. All other things being equal, proving X false does mean that Y is more likely, assuming X and Y are alternative possibilities. More specifically, if new data show that X is impossible, but do not distinguish between Y and any other possibilities, then the posterior probability of Y is p(Y|data) = 1/(1-p(X)), where p(X) is the prior probability of X being true (i.e. the probability before the new data arrived). Curiously, I was not talking about probabilities. As Y is either true or false, regardless of how many other explanations exist, the probability for Y being true is unchanged. Disproving evolution does not make creationism more likely. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
You don't suppose they are referring to Stephen Jay Gould, based on creationists' quote mines? Or Kurt Wise? Kurt Wise - Wikipedia Neither are biologists (not that this fact matters to creationists). Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Taq,
The only person I can think of that fits this description is Lynn Margulis ... Or someone (of several) in developmental biology that said something to the effect that environmental effects are more important than natural selection. Someone like Jeff Schwartz?
"Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartz Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
RAZD writes: Coyote writes: You don't suppose they are referring to Stephen Jay Gould, based on creationists' quote mines? Or Kurt Wise? Kurt Wise - Wikipedia Neither are biologists (not that this fact matters to creationists). Enjoy Stephen Jay Gould is generally considered a biologist. He worked in the field of biology, whatever his degree was in, so I think this qualifies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Except that Gould never questioned the Theory of Evolution, but actually supported it very vocally. So, it couldn't have been him. However, if you read creationist quote-mines, it seems as if Gould was a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Kurt Wise had always been a fundamentalist and creationist. He just happens to be (or to have been) one of the very few honest ones. He admitted that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but accepting it would conflict with his beliefs (he had taken a bible and cut out of it everything that he believed he would have to abandon by accepting evolution and, I think, an ancient earth, and was left with tatters), so he made the conscious decision to go with his beliefs instead.
There was an interview with him on AiG. PSI still think it was most likely Kenyon. But, as everybody has pointed out, given the nature of creationist quote-mining, it could be anybody. Edited by dwise1, : PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Huh? In what sense is Gould not a biologist? He wrote important papers in several areas of biological research.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024