|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Modulous writes:
Yes, of course that is how a great deal of science is done.
Basing observations upon standards? Proposing standards on theoretical grounds? Is this how you think scientists go about doing stuff? Modulous writes:
He could not "just tinker, measure and record results" until there were suitable measurement standards to follow.He didn't just tinker, measure and record results of various experiments and say "I did this 500 times and I got the following results, indicating this is a rule that describes the relationship between Force and Acceleration in general," That would be completely against the practice of science as it occurs every day - right? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mod writes: How about an old thread Fair enough. I have kicked things off (in a continuation sort of way) with Message 159
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
Oh, bullshit.So Newton didn't discover relationships between empirically observed phenomenon he invented them? That's not what I said and it's not implied by what I said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
See Message 164
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Surely one of us linking replies to the new (i.e. old but re-invigorated) thread is enough?
If anyone foolish enough to be reading this follows my link they will see your reply to that post. You don't need to highlight every wisdomic pearl of yours twice Nwr. Please no replies to this message....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I thought one of the big points was that science's conclusions aren't being proposed as the truth. Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers. bluegenes' theory isn't being proclaimed as the truth - it is tentative. If you argue that it is invalid on these grounds, you are arguing all other scientific theories are invalid on those grounds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I thought one of the big points was that science's conclusions aren't being proposed as the truth. Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers.
bluegenes' theory isn't being proclaimed as the truth - it is tentative. If you argue that it is invalid on these grounds, you are arguing all other scientific theories are invalid on those grounds. That's not what I am arguing. The theory: "All swans are white" is not making a claim that there are no black swans out there. Right? Now, let me just re-spell this all out as this was from, like, two weeks ago. My Message 502:
quote: So, someone taking the position that there are no black swans as being more likely to be valid than not, based on the theory that all swans are white, would be taking a logically invalid position, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So, someone taking the position that there are no black swans as being more likely to be valid than not, based on the theory that all swans are white, would be taking a logically invalid position, no? And a forensic expert that uses facts about what has happened in the past to deduce what happened at a crime scene is being logically invalid, by this standard of validity. But they're doing science. So if this action is logically invalid - then we have to be arguing that science is logically invalid. As I said: "RAZD is arguing that science is logically invalid" So, let's say we agree with RAZD. Why would he be singling out bluegenes' theory for being likewise logically invalid? It's like Dover County putting stickers on books warning about the tentativity of evolution instead of just mentioning the tentativity of scientific conclusions. It's fine that
That's not what I am arguing. But it is what I was arguing. You interjected with
quote: I simply pointed out that this is true of any scientific theory. Hence why I said "If you argue that it is invalid on these grounds, you are arguing all other scientific theories are invalid on those grounds."
Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers. Are you suggesting bluegenes has done anything like this? What relevance do you think this has to the bluegenes-RAZD debate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, someone taking the position that there are no black swans as being more likely to be valid than not, based on the theory that all swans are white, would be taking a logically invalid position, no?
And a forensic expert that uses facts about what has happened in the past to deduce what happened at a crime scene is being logically invalid, by this standard of validity.
Wait... how so?
But they're doing science. So if this action is logically invalid - then we have to be arguing that science is logically invalid. As I said: "RAZD is arguing that science is logically invalid" I don't think its the same thing. How would, say, finding your fingerprint on a murder weapon be making a logically invalid induction like that of using the theory that all swans are white to conclude that there probably aren't any black swans out there?
So, let's say we agree with RAZD. I'm still not seeing this as what he's saying. And I'm not agreeing with it if he is.
quote: I simply pointed out that this is true of any scientific theory. Hence why I said "If you argue that it is invalid on these grounds, you are arguing all other scientific theories are invalid on those grounds." I'm not seeing all other scientific theories as making the same logically invalid conclusion.
Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers. Are you suggesting bluegenes has done anything like this? What relevance do you think this has to the bluegenes-RAZD debate?
Maybe I'm all mixed up here... I thought the A-1 point was supporting a strong atheist position of there being no god(s). That the theory that all gods come from human imagination suggests that there probably aren't any gods out there. And thus, its a rational evidence supported conclusion as opposed to an opinion. Do I need to re-read?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, CS.
Catholic Scientist writes: How would, say, finding your fingerprint on a murder weapon be making a logically invalid induction like that of using the theory that all swans are white to conclude that there probably aren't any black swans out there? The theory that fingerprints are unique to individuals leads to the inductive conclusion that all fingerprints of a given conformation come from the same individual (these fingerprints are "white swans"). We can conclude from this that there are no fingerprints of that type that could have come from a different individual (such fingerprints would be "black swans"). Edited by Bluejay, : "could have" -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The only known source of a specific fingerprint is a unique individual.
ALL fingerprints are sourced from unique individuals. This is a strong theory. This would be falsified if we invented a configurable fingerprint generating machine or found more than one person with the exact same fingerprints as another. AbE - And the strength of the fingerprint identity theory is not weakened because somebody happens to hold the baseless but unfalsifiable belief that fingerprints can sometimes magically appear. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Wait... how so? If the forensic scientist stands up in court and says "It is more likely that the wounds on the arm were caused post mortem.", based on the theory that all stragnated* wound patterns are caused post mortem then he would be doing the same thing you said was logically invalid.
I don't think its the same thing. How would, say, finding your fingerprint on a murder weapon be making a logically invalid induction like that of using the theory that all swans are white to conclude that there probably aren't any black swans out there? When you say 'my fingerprint', you actually mean a pattern of grease marks that correspond to a pattern of skin ridges on the tips of one of my fingers. If the forensic scientist uses the empirically supported theory that
quote: to conclude, when asked a stupid question by a moronic lawyer, 'it probably wasn't caused by the tongue of a parakeet'. What should the forensic scientist do when the moronic lawyer demands the forensic scientists unequivocally rules out parakeet tongue manipulation as a source for the greasy patterns?
I thought the A-1 point was supporting a strong atheist position of there being no god(s). That the theory that all gods come from human imagination suggests that there probably aren't any gods out there. And thus, its a rational evidence supported conclusion as opposed to an opinion. But what has bluegenes' theory done that other theories don't? Or what has his theory not done that other theories do? I have a theory that every book is written by a human author. This suggests that there probably aren't any non-human authors out there. I have a theory that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This suggests that there probably aren't any unequal or non-opposing reactions out there. Is this logically invalid? Does it only apply to bluegenes theory which might be worded "every supernatural creature was created by human imagination. ". Where does bluegenes' theory "go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers"? There would only be a problem if someone said "Since it is a theory, it is a fact" - which would be clearly problematic. Nobody is saying that because it is predicted by the theory, it is therefore true that there are no gods. * Made-up word. Wound analysis is complex, so I'm simplifying for sanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Rrhain, thanks.
I am interested in your process. How did you examine the question and how much effort did you put into it? Curiously, it is not my process that is in question here, it is the one supposedly used by bluegenes et al who are the ones making the claim that {X} is a product of human imagination. After all he claimed to have lots of evidence to support his concept, yet has provided none so far to show that a single entity is made up.
Of course but again, this is about process. You seem to agree that there is a method by which we can determine that something is fictional in origin. I am interested in knowing where the boundaries lie. By understanding how you come to a conclusion that something is fictional in one case, we can apply those methods to other concepts and see if we come to the same conclusion or whether special pleading is going on. Exactly, and this is why bluegenes et al need to produce the process and show valid results of it, then use that basis to form an hypothesis and test the hypothesis. The IPU was proposed for an example of an instance of using the process to reach a valid\logical conclusion. Others could be used instead. Amusingly, all I see so far is the assumption that a concept is true\valid being used as a basis for making an hypothesis that the concept is true\valid, and this is not the way science is done. Certainly using a plethora of intentionally made up fictional caricatures does not address the necessary methodology\process in any way shape or form. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024