Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 6:56 AM
132 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat) (1 member, 131 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 91 of 98 (435375)
11-20-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by EighteenDelta
11-20-2007 2:15 PM


Re: Canyon
Not a single 'bit' has been disproved to date. This theory is in fact a body of facts, no wonder its taught as fact. Not only are we evolved from apes, we are in fact still apes.
Wikipedia:Most ape species are rare or endangered. The chief threat to most of the endangered species is loss of tropical rainforest habitat, though some populations are further imperiled by hunting for bushmeat.

How true, that humans are apes, and in my opinion, the most endangered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-20-2007 2:15 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-20-2007 3:46 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2002 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 92 of 98 (435381)
11-20-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by bluescat48
11-20-2007 3:17 PM


Re: Canyon
How true, that humans are apes, and in my opinion, the most endangered.

how exactly does a population of 6.5 billion constitute "endangered"?

Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 11-20-2007 3:17 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by bluescat48, posted 11-20-2007 4:26 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 93 of 98 (435390)
11-20-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by macaroniandcheese
11-20-2007 3:46 PM


Re: Canyon
sarcasm

I tend to inject sarcasm into posts to help maintain my sanity from some of what I read in other posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-20-2007 3:46 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-20-2007 4:29 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2002 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 94 of 98 (435391)
11-20-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by bluescat48
11-20-2007 4:26 PM


Re: Canyon
i was hoping. i never know on here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by bluescat48, posted 11-20-2007 4:26 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by bluescat48, posted 11-20-2007 5:38 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 95 of 98 (435397)
11-20-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by macaroniandcheese
11-20-2007 4:29 PM


Re: Canyon
who does?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-20-2007 4:29 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4637
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 96 of 98 (464372)
04-25-2008 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Rrhain
11-14-2007 2:25 AM


Re: Canyon
rain writes:

Incorrect. It is precisely because of deductive logic that we get paradigm shifts:

If X is true, then we necessarily see Y. We instead see Z, therefore X cannot be true and must be discarded.

You misunderstand. The example you gave is used as induction through confirmation. If apples are true then we see apples but if we instead see oranges that doesn't mean apple-theory must be discarded. You need to study MORE on specific, and the difference between proof and evidence.

A falsification is not deductive logic, in the sense that a theory can be thought of as wrong and later be re-established as viable. For example if you expect to find transitionals and find not transitionals this is not a 'proof' there are none.

The falsification is only strong because there has to be lots of 'little' confirming evidences in order to imply that theory X is true. A falsification is powerful but the actual theory depends on induction.

In the context of science, how is it not? The Bible is nothing but assertion and what is assertion if not wishful thinking? We don't include the Iliad, the Odyssey, Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, the Book of Three, the Koran, the Baghvad Gita, and a host of other books in science.

Why do you wish to invoke special pleading for your favorite book?

Lame informal fallacy. By association they aren't the same and a mere assertion of anecdote doesn't = false. Back to logic school before you go teaching the rest of us!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 11-14-2007 2:25 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2008 7:32 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 97 of 98 (464374)
04-25-2008 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by mike the wiz
04-25-2008 7:08 AM


Re: Canyon
quote:

You misunderstand. The example you gave is used as induction through confirmation. If apples are true then we see apples but if we instead see oranges that doesn't mean apple-theory must be discarded

You're relying on equivocation here, Mike. And that's logically invalid.

If you disagree tell me how you can interpret the statement:

"If the apple theory is true we must necessarily see apples" so that it is true AND so it can also be the case that the apple theory is true, yet we do not see apples.
(i.e. you need to show that A=>B, A and ~B can all be simultaneously true. And the truth table for implication shows that that is logically impossible).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by mike the wiz, posted 04-25-2008 7:08 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2008 9:27 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4637
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 98 of 98 (464691)
04-28-2008 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
04-25-2008 7:32 AM


Re: Canyon
After having a little think about this I realized that Rhrain wasn't understanding my point, or perhaps I didn't explain it well enough.

My argument, (IIRC, was a while back,), is that theory is induction-based. I concede that his example of falsification is deductive logic. I only realized later that that is exactly why falsification is so powerful, because confirmation (induction) is so weak!

My main point stands - theories are mainlyinduction-based. I never said that this excludes any deductive logic WITHIN that theory. Afterall, that is why there is a paradigm shift - because induction is weak and deductive proof is strong. I was silly to take the bait.

Apologies if I don't get back to you on this, as I don't count myself as a debater any longer and I only access the internet when I happen to be in the library.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2008 7:32 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019