Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 143 (694446)
03-24-2013 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:31 PM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
designtheorist1 writes:
Let me try again. The old and often used criticism of creationism is that creationists are afraid of data, facts and science. They point to the law passed in Tennessee and the prosecution of the teacher in the Scopes Trial as evidence of censorship. Obviously, if creationism wasn't afraid of data and science, they would not try to censor science in this manner. Science is supposed to be self-correcting. But it is only self-correcting when all sides get a thorough hearing of the evidence.
Reading the other responses I got that sense that it went unnoticed that you're pointing out that creationism tried to censor science, not the other way around, and that this tallies against creationism.
But whether your example is Scopes or Sternberg (former undercover intelligent design advocate as editor of the BSOC), censorship has nothing to do with any theory's explanatory or predictive power, which are the only criteria that matter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:31 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 9:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 64 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 55 of 143 (694449)
03-24-2013 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 8:08 PM


Re: The Major Tests
designtheorist1 writes:
1. "Censorship is not a good test because we have the right to censor out bad science or anything that sniffs of religion or god."
I disagree. Forget about teaching creationism in the public schools. That is not what this test is about.
But earlier you used the example of Scopes teaching evolution in public schools. If censoring evolution in public schools is an example, then so is censoring creationism in public schools. I agree that the test isn't about public education, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
The attempt to censor all science papers that lead to a discussion of the supernatural is wrong. If the evidence points to the supernatural, then follow the evidence.
I think you'll get nearly universal agreement that science should follow the evidence wherever it leads. It's not that there's censorship of the supernatural, it's that there's no good evidence. Since science is the study of the natural it can't really study the supernatural anyway.
No, Darwinian orthodoxy is stultifying. People refuse to look at the evidence because they know that any change of mind would be bad for their career.
Careers, nay, even fame and fortune, are built from forging new pathways of discovery. What's bad for careers is doing bad science.
Actually, integration is my favorite among these minor tests.
And it should be, because it isn't a minor test. It's part of explanatory power. The more consistent and interwoven any theory is with the rest of science the greater its explanatory power.
I view this test (research passion) as having confirmatory power.
Actually, what is required in science is objectivity and dispassion. As Feynman told us, the easiest person to fool is oneself, and there's nothing like overenthusiasm to fuel the engines of self-deception.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 143 (694487)
03-25-2013 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2013 1:04 AM


Re: The Major Tests
Dr Adequate writes:
To test a theory we compare its predictions (in the sense of "logical consequences") with the data available to us now.
I did see that NoNukes thinks there may be some issue with grammatical tenses at work, but I just wanted to state in terms that make sense to at least me what I think you're trying to say, which is that a theory should make predictions about what we will find. Successful predictions give us confidence in a theory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2013 1:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 69 of 143 (694493)
03-25-2013 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 7:52 AM


Re: The Major Tests
designtheorist1 writes:
Ample evidence exists that people are punished for simply questioning evidence for Darwinism.
Ample accusations exist, but not ample evidence. Science encourages skepticism. To say that questioning evolution is a good thing is true. To say that the evidence calls evolution into question is false.
Dr. Carolyn Crocker was one in the movie who did not have her teaching contract renewed. She now runs and organization called American Institute for Science and Technology Education. One of the pages of her website lists a number of teaching and professional scientists who publicly support her organization, AITSE. But it also has this statement.
Caroline Crocker was teaching non-science in science class at the college level. She said that the evidence calls evolution into question, which is false, and she made a number of misstatements of fact. See the Wikipedia article on Carline Crocker, particularly the second paragraph of the section titled George Mason University which provides details of some of her claims.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 7:52 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 79 of 143 (694507)
03-25-2013 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 8:20 AM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
designtheorist1 writes:
Science debates are typically conducted in the science literature. Someone writes a paper and another writes a response. The original author writes a reply and the critic writes a rejoinder. But this type of debate within the scientific literature is not happening because the Darwinian priests are afraid of a public scientific debate.
There are no "Darwinian priests." The editors of journals and conferences are responsible for keeping the focus on science. People like Caroline Crocker, who you mentioned earlier, would be unable to contribute because they would be unable to provide any scientific support for their ideas. It isn't enough to have opinions - one must have scientific support for one's opinions.
For example, Crocker's statement that "No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory" as a criticism of evolution is not only a misrepresentation (because evolution not only doesn't think this should happen but absolutely thinks it should not) but is also horribly confused and simpleminded. This view of what is wrong with evolution would never make it into a scientific journal or conference simply because it not only has no scientific support whatsoever but even worse shows the claimant to be at best horribly confused and at worst terribly ignorant.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:20 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 85 of 143 (694513)
03-25-2013 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 8:50 AM


Re: The Major Tests
designtheorist writes:
I don't think endosymbiosis or lateral gene transfer are contrary to Darwinism in any way. So Darwinism has not "yielded" at all. Darwinism yielded to neo-Darwinism decades ago and is yielding now to "Darwinism in the light of genomics" but the yielding is not without pain. Richard Dawkins is still in denial.
What are you saying about Dawkins here? That he rejects endosymbiosis, whose discovery he calls a great achievement, or lateral gene transfer? That he doesn't accept "Darwinism in the light of genomics", even though he wrote The Selfish Gene.
I'm a fan not of Dawkins (whose non-scientific views I detest) but of accuracy. Whatever it is you're trying to say, since Dawkins is a scientist who follows the evidence where it leads I very much doubt that he is in denial about anything supported by evidence. He understands that it is current evidence that theory explains and future evidence that it predicts, and I'm sure none of the five irrelevant tests you're pushing enter into his scientific thinking.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:50 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 9:26 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 143 (694520)
03-25-2013 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by AdminNosy
03-25-2013 9:10 AM


Re: Different Definitions
AdminNosy writes:
quote:
If a prediction is not related to the future, then it is not a prediction.
I think this is an important point which is not generally agreed upon in this context.
Maybe we need to get some things I let go by earlier squared away. I think someone already mentioned that the precession of Mercury was already well known before Einstein developed his general theory of relativity. Einstein used it to confirm to himself that his theory was correct before he published. Mercury's precession was therefore not something the general theory of relativity successfully predicted, but rather something already known that it explained.
The bending of light by gravity *was* a prediction, a successful one as it turns out. The fact that the prediction and the successful outcome now lie in the past is a non-factor, and I don't understand why it keeps coming up as an issue of confusion. (Someone earlier alluded to the fact that perhaps the Eddington confirmation should be eyed skeptically and that true confirmation only came later, but that's a separate issue.)
At the time it is made, a prediction has to be about the future. I don't see how context could change this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AdminNosy, posted 03-25-2013 9:10 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 143 (694524)
03-25-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 9:26 AM


Re: The Major Tests
designtheorist writes:
I'm saying that Darwin does not accept the recent rejection of Darwin's LUCA.
Darwin doesn't accept Darwin - how interesting.
But never mind, I understand what you meant. So reading your other posts about Dawkins I now see that you think he continues to accept LUCA because he is maintaining Darwinian orthodoxy rather than basing his views upon the evidence.
What Venter said that Dawkins took issue with was this:
Venter writes:
"I'm not so sanguine as some of my colleagues here," he said, "that there's only one life form on this planet. We have a lot of different types of metabolism, different organisms. I wouldn't call you [Venter said, turning to physicist Paul Davies, on his right] the same life form as the one we have that lives in pH 12 base, that would dissolve your skin if we dropped you in it."
When Paul Davies, who was also at the conference, responded that we have the same genetic code Venter went on:
Venter writes:
"You don't have the same genetic code," replied Venter. "In fact, the Mycoplasmas [a group of bacteria Venter and his team have used to engineer synthetic chromosomes] use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells. So there are a lot of variations on the theme..."
Dawkins later says:
Dawkins writes:
"I'm intrigued," replies Dawkins, "at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction. I mean...the DNA code of all creatures that have ever been looked at is all but identical."
Venter has an interesting opinion and even seems to offer some evidence in support, but if you look up the Mycoplasmas over at Wikipedia you won't find anything supporting Venter's claim that they "use a different genetic code" and I think most biologists would share Davies and Dawkins skepticism at this point in time. I also think that most biologists would be terribly interested and excited if it were ever discovered that there are actually multiple trees of life. Imagine the opportunities to expand our knowledge that would develop out of the discovery that life originated not once but at least twice.
You can find the above cut-n-pastes here: Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life -- and Another Dawkins Whopper
And you can find the video here: The Greate Debate - What is Life?
And you can find the request that you stop throwing out unsupported claims and accusations faster than people can catch up with them in this sentence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 9:26 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 11:50 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 94 of 143 (694530)
03-25-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by NoNukes
03-25-2013 10:42 AM


Re: Clarification
Hi NoNukes,
I have to disagree with your interpretation of prediction. By your definition string theory is making successful predictions every time it comes up with answers consistent with the standard model.
Wikipedia's introductory paragraph on Scientific Theories seems pretty clear about the separate roles of explanation and prediction:
Wikipedia writes:
In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources. (See characteristics of scientific theories.)
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2013 10:42 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2013 11:44 AM Percy has replied
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2013 3:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 98 of 143 (694534)
03-25-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by NoNukes
03-25-2013 11:44 AM


Re: Clarification
NoNukes writes:
If I have suggested anything other than that predictions must match reality then I was wrong. But I don't believe I've said anything about matching one theory to another theory rather than to reality as being a test.
No, no, no, not what I meant, my fault. By "standard model" I only meant what we already know. When I said "consistent with the standard model" I only meant "consistent with what we already know."
Einstein's theory of general relativity had explanatory power because it was consistent with what we already knew, for example, about the precession of Mercury. And it had predictive power because it predicted things we didn't know, such as how much gravity would bend light, and how much rotating mass would bend space-time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2013 11:44 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2013 12:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 143 (694536)
03-25-2013 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 11:50 AM


Re: The Major Tests
designtheorist writes:
Koonin has written more than one article on the topic. His view is catching on because it has good science behind it. Yes, there are some who have not accepted the new view yet but most people are not even aware of it.
Dawkins' skepticism of Venter at the conference seems fully justified. Is there something Dawkins has said about Koonin's work that justifies your characterization of denial?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 11:50 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 143 (694544)
03-25-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by NoNukes
03-25-2013 12:16 PM


Re: Clarification
NoNukes writes:
Perhaps predictive power can be distinguished from explanatory power, but I simply don't see how differences in timing between phenomenon and observation make a theory more or less viable.
They don't. As a theory is being formulated, contradiction by known data is fatal. After a theory is formulated, contradiction by furute data is fatal.
A simple analogy. A career in show business can be killed before it ever gets off the ground (no talent), or after it gets off the ground (scandal, perhaps). In the same way a promising theory can be killed before it gets off the ground (contradicted by known data), or after it gets off the ground (contradicted by future data).
Maybe some are wondering that if contradiction by real-world data is fatal to a theory then why should it matter whether it happens before or after the theory is introduced. Why distinguish between explanatory and predictive?
I guess there are two answers. First, a theory will never be introduced if it is contradicted by known data (unless the theory is being proposed by a creationist). Second, the predictive power of a theory is incredibly valuable because it leads us into realms not previously understood. It is one of the important ways that we expand our knowledge of the universe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2013 12:16 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 104 of 143 (694562)
03-25-2013 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Drosophilla
03-25-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Clarification
Drosophilla writes:
This is absolute nonsense - pure drivel! How many Hollywood films about 'the future' have you seen to believe that prediction is about things that are 'yet to happen'?
Regarding theory, no one's saying that prediction is about things that are yet to happen. It's about things that are yet to be discovered.
And no one's saying that prediction is only about what will be discovered. It can as easily be about what won't be discovered.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Drosophilla, posted 03-25-2013 3:42 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 4:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 107 of 143 (694570)
03-25-2013 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 4:31 PM


Re: Clarification
designtheorist writes:
I think perhaps now we are ready to discuss the evidence. But I will need a little time to formulate this... perhaps a few days.
I sense no consensus on the main topic, so I don't know why you think you're ready to move on.
And you made a number of questionable claims. I addressed two of them myself, and now you're just going to leave them hanging? And given that you've responded to less than half the messages there must be others in the thread feeling the same way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 4:31 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 9:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 116 of 143 (694600)
03-26-2013 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by NoNukes
03-25-2013 11:26 PM


Re: Clarification
NoNukes writes:
I rejected the proposed test "acceptance by scientists" as circular reasoning that gives the status quo an unfair advantage
I do not know of any established scientist that would propose such a test.
I submit that you cannot name any scientist who would reject such a test.
I'd like to add a small amount of elaboration that might help DesignTheorist understand your position. A theory is likely true not because it is accepted by scientists. Rather, it is accepted by scientists, who attempt to objectively apply scientific criteria, because it is likely true. A theory that is widely accepted by scientists should not be lightly dismissed. It should be given very serious consideration in recognition of the great deal of research and thought that went into its formulation and its subsequent analysis and acceptance, including revisions and enhancements.
This recognition of the substantial scientific support behind any theory is what is missing from most creationist thought. Many seem to believe that Darwin and his friends were just sitting around a table discussing how to oppose Christian thought on origins when Darwin piped up, "I've got an idea," and then and there around that table they just made everything up. Many creationists haven't an inkling of the amount of evidence and thought behind evolution, or any of the other scientific disciplines that they oppose, from geology to cosmology to global warming.
The topic is interesting, but this thread is full of unaddressed concerns and summary dismissals on your part.
I haven't debated DesignTheorist before like you have (at least not that I recall), but the alarm bells are going off for me, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2013 11:26 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024