What you see with your own eyes vs what scientists claim

Simple answer, no.Nothing I have seen conflict with the existence of something in the atmosphere that is being called 'nitrogen'.

Nothing I have observed conflicts with the existence of something that is called quantum computer.I am not asking for an explanation of evolution/learning. I am asking for a citation of the conclusion that behaviour is either evolved or learned.But, if it is too elementary to be included as part of an audit trail, Modulous should have no difficulty pointing me to any of the catalogue of sources.

In other words, you think there is an obligation on scientists when they are writing the conclusions of their papers which are to be assessed by their peers to make sure they don't cause confusion (word things clearly) with untrained members of the public (those that don't have access to full details)?Sounds like I got the point first time round. I still don't see why they should. The conclusion you gave was quite straightforward but anyone that just looks at a conclusion and expects to understand the paper is fooling themselves. Most of the time, it is just the abstract that is available at any rate. The same caveats apply. I have no formal answer, I am not an ethologist. In case your comprehension skills were not up to the task let me assure you that I was tentatively posting affirmative answers to the questions posted. Yes, that was the conclusion I was assuming you were referring to. So as I said, it seems pretty solid to me, and I don't see why it is unnecessary or why one would desire to avoid it. That is what their data suggests. Once again, if you think they've missed something important you might demonstrate to my satisfaction that the paper
is erroneous. If this is the kind of thing you started your OP to
demonstrate, then it is already known that scientific papers are not
gospel. For what? The commonly used model of animal behaviour in ethology? The idea of learned vs innate behaviours? Or do you want a cite for the idea that innate behaviours can be explained as having evolved? This would be a whole thread in its own right but why don't we just go for the pioneers and use Konrad Lorenz and Charles Darwin.Howevr, I don't see the need to cite previous work when it comes to the suggestion made. You have still been unable to provide even a third alternative to their list of possibilities that are suggested by the results of their work. The sentence, as far as I can see, is entirely correct. It remains possible to falsify it and it retains tentativity. Simplifying this line of thinking down:
You said: they should have used the word 'know'
I said: If not using the word 'know' is as bad as it gets, I think we're doing well.
You said: Bad is an emotive word. I just prefer the evidence of my own eyes to what a scientist says "pretty much" happens.Now, you'll have to excuse me if I thought when you said 'I just prefer the evidence of my own eyes' in response to me, you were still referring to something about this paper which is why I asked you if the evidence of your eyes has given you a better answer than reading the science (is there some other reason to tell me your preferences at this point). Now you refer me to the OP. So let me repeat my point, if this is as bad as it gets - we're doing well. I previously suggested you try a more obvious example to avoid the inevitable tooing and froing over the minutae of this one paper, perhaps now would be a good time to come up with something more obvious to illustrate your point?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sure there is. You breathe, don't you? You breathe oxygen, not nitrogen.

You're kidding, right? Everything in everyday experience is in conflict with the concept of quantum computer. Everyday life doesn't operate on probability and uncertainty.

I want a citation thati) ALL innate behaviours in animals are evolved behaviours
ii) ALL non-evolved behaviours are learned behavioursBut I see you have hedged your bets and attempted to foreclose that option by deeming it unnecessary. I appreciate your sense of haste in wanting to 'move on' from this awkward point.I took "as bad as it gets" to refer to science in general, so I answered in general. The paper in question is symptomatic of how scientific concepts can be reinforced without support. (Unless, of course, you produce some citations and quotes).My personal evidence would go against the premise that ALL innate behaviours are evolved behaviours.

Taz, you'll have to be more specific. I am not saying, "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist". I am saying I believe what I do observe in preference to something I am told that conflicts.I am not you, Taz. Tell us your concerns. Give a specific example.

Excuse me for butting in, but it seems to me that you have never been involved in training athletes (at least not beyond your neighborhood rec leagues). Higher level programs (from competitive youth travel to the pros) utilize scientific findings in their training programs all the time. These findings help athletes throw better, catch better, run better, hit better and do all of these things more safely. Kinesiology is especially important to help athletes develop sport specific workouts that optimize their game and help them avoid injuy. Physics research has also helped trainers develop programs.For example:

quote:

---

Can Pitching be Learned?

​

Two researchers - Dr. Joe P. Bramhall, a team physician at Texas A&M University, and Dr. Charles Dillman, of the American Sports Medicine Institute - videotaped the deliveries of 48 major league pitchers, including Dwight Gooden, Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, and Dave Stewart. They found out that, although these men have different styles, from a scientific point of view they still pitch in the same way.
As far as the arm angle, elbow angle, shoulder angles, and balance were concerned, these men do the same things.

​

The purpose of the study was to teach young players the correct way to pitch and thus prevent them from making mistakes that might lead to injuries of the pitching arm. The researchers came up with some rules:

​

1. In the windup, the pitcher should be balanced at the top of the leg kick, coiled, and ready to spring forward.

​

2. The length of the stride should be slightly less than the body height. The left foot of the right-hander (or the right foot of that left-hander) should step directly toward home plate, moving to the side six inches or less.

​

3. In the delivery, the back rotation of the shoulder should not be greater than 165 to 180 degrees. The elbow should be flexed between 70 and 115 degrees.

​

4. In the follow-through, a smooth, extended motion should slow down the pitching arm gradually. The throwing shoulder should be aligned over the opposite knee after the release of the ball. The upper body should be slightly flexed.

---

Science at the ballgameYou can do research for yourself on sports training programs and how much they rely on science not only to teach their pitchers how to pitch, but to devise weight training programs, decide which gear to use, make adjustments based on weather and field conditions, and just about anything else you can think of. You might surprise yourself./ot rant

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

I've even seen the 3-D graphics which allow coaches to pinpoint weaknesses in an athletes action.The person who has the last word is the athlete or coach, not the scientist, for very good reason.

Again, how much do you know about the various theories of human memory?Moving to your next point,

quote:

---

There is also general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners, and that further research is warranted.[10][11][12] Though charged as pseudoscience, Dr. William F. Williams, author of Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, notes that acupuncture --"once rejected as 'oriental fakery' -- is now (if grudgingly) recognized as engaged in something quite real."[13]

---

I'd say the above doesn't give the whole picture.The metaphysical concept of "chi" that acupuncturists have claimed to manipulate has never been shown to exist. It has been demonstrated that it is likely that endorphin release is the reason for the benefit, and that massage often provides the same benefit without breaking the skin with needles. Accupuncture has been shown to be effective in temporarily relieving only certain kinds of back and neck pain and no better than placebo for other conditions it has claimed, for centuries, to cure or help. Future testing may reveal otherwise, but that's not a problem for science.But anyway, I fail to see how this is supportive for you.Scientists didn't accept accupuncture's effectiveness until there were studies to show it to be effective, albeit in a far more limited scope than TCM practitioners claim.Scientists still don't accept that acupuncturists manipulate "chi" or that it can affect the spleen, stomach, kidneys, etc. like TCM says it can, and that's because there is no evidence for them. Those concepts are pseudoscientific.

I know hardly anything of scientific theory of human memory. Incorrect. You will find me doing this a lot - adding the word 'scientist' where it is missing.Scientists didn't accept accupuncture's effectiveness until there were studies to show scientists it was effectiveThe whole point is that people knew before scientists did, and while scientists were 'refuting' it.

Nice selective quoting. Did you miss the part about "chi" never having been proven to exist, or the fact that it's been shown to have no effect whatsoever compared to placebo on a whole host of ailments acupuncture has claimed to relieve or cure?Scientists eventually did some studies, and found that there was a slight effect from acupuncture, and that this effect was similar to that of massage. They did not determine that all of the "common knowledge" surrounding acupuncture was accurate in any way. In fact, they showed that most of the claims of acupuncture are completely bullshit! Traditional practitioners believed (and still claim) that acupuncture cures a whole host of ailments - but it's not true.When you see something unexpected out of the corner of your eye, sinequanon, what's the first thing you do? Do you turn to the person next to you and ask, "did you see that?" That's one of the basics of the scientific method - proving that your perception of events is accurate by having it verified independently.People have believed in all manner of foolishness and fantasy that they think they "saw with their own eyes," and have "seen patterns" in events that simply don't exist. The human brain is notorious for recognizing (or even projecting) patterns where none exist - for instance, cloud shapes, or any number of superstitions surrounding winning the lottery.This is why scientific independent verification is so important.And yes, that's why you should notalways trust your own perceptions over "what scientists tell you." After all, your eyes tell you the world is flat. Do you believe your eyes over science?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Why? In Message 61 you wrote:

quote:

---

Nothing I have seen conflict with the existence of something in the atmosphere that is being called 'nitrogen'.

---

What, exactly, have you seen that conflicts with the idea that behavior is either innate or learned? Yeah right Would you care to expand on this personal evidence? Can you simply just say what it is?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

You need to look back here Message 51
Then citation here Message 55They were wrong, QED. My eyes don't tell me the world is flat.

Sure, once we get those citations, I will explain how they conflict with my observations.