Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 136 of 744 (327705)
06-30-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by inkorrekt
06-29-2006 10:55 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
You are right on. Some theories become facts as and when evidence is provided.Other theories stay as theories because, there is no evidence.
You don't understand the relationship between 'theories' and 'facts'.
Theories are models to explain the facts. For example, the THEORY of evolution is a model to explain how the FACT of evolution works. It is
a FACT that species change. It is a fact that species go extinct, it is a fact that new species appear.
The THEORY of evolution is a model to explain the mechanism of how this happens.
Just like Gravity. The fact is that if you have a brick, and drop it, it falls to the earth as a certain rate of speed. The 'law' of gravity
describes what exactly happens (32 ft per second per second).
The THEORY of gravity is a model to try to explain why this happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 10:55 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 11:29 AM ramoss has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 744 (327835)
06-30-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nwr
02-22-2006 10:46 PM


Re: How to argue for induction
Admittedly, crashfrog was mainly concerned with the comparisons required for measuring. But even then, you have to know what you are measuring in order to know what you are comparing. We find it easy, but if you try to automate general purpose measuring with a robotic system, you will discover that it isn't at all easy.
How did we wind up arguing the exact opposite side of the argument we each started on?
It seems to me that if you're arguing that measurement requires proceeding from things you already know, or assume, then you're arguing the same basic point I started out making, and you started out attacking - measurment is deductive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 02-22-2006 10:46 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by nwr, posted 06-30-2006 5:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 138 of 744 (327848)
06-30-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
06-30-2006 4:33 PM


Re: How to argue for induction
If you thought I was arguing that measuring is deductive, you were mistaken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2006 4:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 139 of 744 (328253)
07-02-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ramoss
06-30-2006 8:56 AM


Re: So is with Evolution
It is
a FACT that species change.
Yes, it is called natural selection, but limited within kind. Some people have blue eyes, and some have brown, but no one has compound eyes.
It is a fact that species go extinct
Yes. Where are the new one's to replace them?
it is a fact that new species appear.
Oh really?
The THEORY of evolution is a model to explain the mechanism of how this happens.
It is a model of what really happens (natural selection) that then tries to extend that principal to what has never been observed (the arrival of a new species).
Just like Gravity. The fact is that if you have a brick, and drop it, it falls to the earth as a certain rate of speed. The 'law' of gravity
describes what exactly happens (32 ft per second per second).
The THEORY of gravity is a model to try to explain why this happens.
With gravity, we can observe the fact and then theorize the mechanism. With natural selection we can observe the mechanism, and then theorize what it is doing. We cannot however, observe the fact of evolution.
Change within species is not a new species, but only a variation within kind.
Evolution presumes more order arising form less order...
It appears to me that the order within the biosphere is degrading. There are less species than in the past and the enviroment is less hospitable to delicate species all the time. Whole ecosystems are in collapse. Systems are ordered...
Within naturalism, there is no moral imperitive to make a claim that this is bad. It is only survival of the fittest. Some species are dying as a result of the actions of man. It seems to me that if evolution and naturalism are true, then this is only a random process that may very well lead to our own death. As such, some new form will take our place.
We should not try to resist our nature. We must allow ourselves to destroy ourselves. According to naturalism, to do otherwise would be unatural. But then again, we must survive even at the expense of other life. But if order in increasing, then why is it decreasing?
Is this confusion natural? Can you induce a response?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ramoss, posted 06-30-2006 8:56 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Chiroptera, posted 07-02-2006 12:31 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 141 by ramoss, posted 07-02-2006 1:38 PM Rob has replied
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 07-02-2006 3:36 PM Rob has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 744 (328271)
07-02-2006 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Rob
07-02-2006 11:29 AM


Sorry for the off-topic comment.
I realize that this is getting off-topic, but I thought the following warranted a reply:
quote:
Evolution presumes more order arising form less order...
Actually, the theory of evolution presumes no such thing. I wrote a post some time ago listing all the presumptions of the theory of evolution; as you can see, there is nothing about "order" arising. If you accept that actual "presumptions", then "order arising out of disorder" may be a logical conclusion, but it is not a presumption. That is, if you can explain what you mean by "order"; but judging from the recent "morality" thread, I suspect that you might not have an idea of "order" that is precise enough to warrant making any definite statements about it.
And since we see "order arising from less order" all the time, there doesn't seem to be anything amiss in presuming this anyway.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 11:29 AM Rob has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 141 of 744 (328282)
07-02-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Rob
07-02-2006 11:29 AM


Re: So is with Evolution
Yes, really, It hzs been observed that new species have arisen in the last 100 years. So, yes, really, new species have arisen.
I am sure you have been given plenty of examples. If not, I can give you those examples. Should I? Or would you reject it out of hand because it does not fit into your preconceptions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 11:29 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 3:30 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 142 of 744 (328299)
07-02-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ramoss
07-02-2006 1:38 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
I am sure you have been given plenty of examples. If not, I can give you those examples. Should I? Or would you reject it out of hand because it does not fit into your preconceptions?
Oh please do... but not in this thread. I have received very kind, yet personal e-mail warnings about taking these topics off point. I must change my ways... Perhaps you could shoot me an e-mail. This is nwr's topic, and we are not on it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ramoss, posted 07-02-2006 1:38 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 143 of 744 (328300)
07-02-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Rob
07-02-2006 11:29 AM


Re: So is with Evolution
Define 'kind'. Give straight forward definition that can actually be used.
And you see, when it comes to changes in families.. you have two very closely related species. Each starts taking small steps of character traits away from the 'parent' species... but in opposite direction.
As the tiny steps add up, each succeeding generation is the same 'kind'
as the previous one, but they no longer are the same 'kind' as the
parent species, no of it's 'cousin' species.
It's all done with baby steps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 11:29 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 3:39 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 144 of 744 (328301)
07-02-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by ramoss
07-02-2006 3:36 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
Define 'kind'. Give straight forward definition that can actually be used.
-Humans-
Perhpas you can tell me who is more evolved, an African human, or a caucasion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 07-02-2006 3:36 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by CK, posted 07-02-2006 3:55 PM Rob has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 145 of 744 (328302)
07-02-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Rob
07-02-2006 3:39 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
Neither - the question is incorrect phrased - evolution does not say anything about anything being "more evolved" (edit: In the linear sense of moving from "worse" to "better").
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 3:39 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 4:02 PM CK has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 146 of 744 (328303)
07-02-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by CK
07-02-2006 3:55 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
evolution does not say anything about anything being "more evolved".
So, an atom, is a rock, is an e-coli, is a bannana, is a human?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by CK, posted 07-02-2006 3:55 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by CK, posted 07-02-2006 4:03 PM Rob has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 147 of 744 (328305)
07-02-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Rob
07-02-2006 4:02 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
No - not at all.
I hope that answered your question for you.
So
quote:
Perhpas you can tell me who is more evolved, an African human, or a caucasion?
What's your answer to that question?
Please no fortune cookies.
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 4:02 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 4:09 PM CK has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 148 of 744 (328307)
07-02-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by CK
07-02-2006 4:03 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhpas you can tell me who is more evolved, an African human, or a caucasion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your answer to that question?
Neither! But not because the question is flawed... but because evolution is not true.
All of the genetics we see in different races, used to be one. When we combine them we get some of the most beatiful people, both physically, culturally etc..
The problem is not that one is superior to the other, the problem is that all men are fallen in sin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by CK, posted 07-02-2006 4:03 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by CK, posted 07-02-2006 4:13 PM Rob has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 149 of 744 (328309)
07-02-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rob
07-02-2006 4:09 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
quote:
The problem is not that one is superior to the other, the problem is that all men are fallen in sin.
No Thanks I gave in the faith forums earlier. I'll leave the rest of you to it - I have no interest in this sort of conversation in the science forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 4:09 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 4:25 PM CK has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 150 of 744 (328310)
07-02-2006 4:15 PM


Replay of message 1
quote:
  • Yesterday, I bumped into Betty Crowe. She was wearing black shoes.
  • Two weeks ago, I was introduced to John Crowe. I happened to notice that he was wearing black shoes.
  • Bob Crowe was one of my high school friends. As I recall, he wore black shoes.
    All the Crowes I have observed have been wearing black shoes. Therefore all Crowes are wearing black shoes.
  • The above is an example of the "reasoning" principle known as inductive logic. It is absurd. Nobody would jump to the conclusion that all Crowes are wearing black shoes. There is nothing logical about so-called inductive logic.
    Why do people still cling to the myth that science uses induction? Why is there an appearance that induction seems to work, and why are people misled by this appearance?
    Per the "kinds" discussion and everything else off-topic - Look around for a better place to discuss it. Maybe get to know how to use the forums search utility.
    AND IF YOU FEEL YOU MUST REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE (and I don't see why you would want to), do it at the "General..." topic, link below. The last person not to follow this suggestion got a suspension out of it (and for other things).
    Adminnemooseus
    ADDED BY EDIT: AFTER I POSTED THE ABOVE, I'VE LOOKED AT THE NEWEST MESSAGES. THINGS SEEM TO BE GETTING PRETTY STUPID. STOP IT!
    Added by edit #2 (many hours later): For the record (see here), Rob was suspended for 2 hours for posting the following off-topic message 151. There is now a new topic for some of that off-topic content. See message 152 for the link to there.
    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Edit #2 as noted above.

    New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
    General discussion of moderation procedures
    Thread Reopen Requests
    Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    Other useful links:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024