Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

The reality is that you are the idiot who has nothing to add at all.

You lack even basic reading comprehension, as I could already predict from a mile away that you low intellects would start about dice landing not on any side. But even including specifics about the landing, you manage to totally miss it. Even after being pointed out, you even dared to call bs. You are only proving your own incompetence.

Some, including myself, have made negative assessments of your approach to this discussion, and you're responding in ways that only reinforce these assessments. You seem to be trying to avoid a constructive discussion while instead expending your efforts on transforming this discussion into the worst kind, one where insults reign.The discussion of the tentative nature of science and even of observation itself began with your claim of scientists declaring absolute truth. Can you provide any examples of scientists doing this?--Percy

Hi sensei,You seem to have got yourself stuck in another meta-debate instead of tackling the evolution debate itself. A lot of creationist posters fall into that trap. They come here to debate creation and evolution, but they soon find themselves discussing such vital issues as "Are EVC posters a big bunch of meanies?" or "Who's the biggest liar?", to the point where they might as well be debating "Who's got the smelliest bum?". It's a shame, because it's a complete waste of time. He has. We all have. The definitions are pretty much as they have been described to you.I have to ask though; have you looked them up? Where did you receive your education on the subject of Philosophy of Science? Where were you taught the scientific method? Was it a university? A school? A book? Where are you getting your information from? Because your position is an extremely idiosyncratic one. Your stance is in opposition to every single source I can find. Can't help but wonder where you're getting this from. Because a person could be forgiven for thinking that you have no familiarity with the subject and you've pulled this naive piffle directly out of your ass. But that can't be right surely? Can you share your sources with us? You must have got these... let's just say "ideas"... from somewhere? Where?I only ask because if we use your definitions, your idiosyncratic version of the scientific method... the Theory of Evolution is a fact. An absolute fact. By your definitions. By everybody else's definitions, the ones used by actual scientists (as opposed to angry fifteen year old boys ranting on the internet) the ToE is a theory, held tentatively, but with an extremely high degree of confidence. But in your model, the model where we make a bunch of observations, decide that we can't imagine how things could possibly be different and then decide, arbitrarily, that we've found a universal fact, by that method... the ToE is as sure and certain a fact as could possibly exist. Thing is though, your example sucks. It's a shitty analogy.Your example, a die, is just an observation and a rather banal, logically circuitous one at that. It's not a theory. A theory would seek to explain the observation. It would seek to explain why you always see what you see. It would seek to explain the underlying mechanisms. Your example does none of this. It is just an observation.Now in the philosophy of science, observations can be regarded as facts. Theories then seek to explain those facts. Observations are local, but theories are universal. That's why theories are held tentatively, because whilst they seek to be universal in scope, we cannot possibly observe the entire universe, unless you've found a way. Have you got a way to observe the entire universe sensei? Including the past and future? Or are you actually subject to the same limits on empiricism and inductive logic as the rest of us? You mean like you did on the Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment? thread? Because four months later I'm still waiting for a reply to Message 502. You remember? The one where I demonstrated that all your "facts" were complete rubbish? Where I showed how your dumb questions only served to reveal your woeful ignorance of the subject matter? Yeah, that one. Or perhaps you might like to answer Message 501 from Percy? I'm sure he'd be thrilled to receive a reply!Any time you like kid, any time.Mutate and Survive

It was in response to Percy, who commented about measuring a temperature of 37.1 degrees. Is that not an observation then? Why don't you start bitching on him?Your own side makes these statements, but when I'm responding with similar example, I'm the one getting lectured about the whole philosophy of science.You are all just a hopeless bunch.

You're engaging in name calling at that which you don't understand. Tentativity is a key principle within science. It's why we doubt your claim of scientists asserting absolute truth.Yes, there is uncertainty about how the die landed, or even whether you actually threw the die, or that we measured the temperature. I'm reminded of a minor scientific fraud that was uncovered maybe a decade ago when a medical researcher was found to have used the same photos in different papers, rotating them to make it difficult to detect. The repurposed photos were claimed to be of the results of experiments he never performed.There is no certainty anywhere within this universe.But fear not. While there is not certainty there *is* reliability. A given experiment might not have a 100% probability of yielding the expected outcome, but 99.999999999% is more than enough to reliably produce that outcome.The odds of a die coming to rest on a corner are vanishingly small, but not zero. That's tentativity at work.--Percy

Your bad habit of banging out a knee-jerk response in seconds is probably your biggest obstacle to sensible discussion. You might want to get into the habit of thinking before you type. Yes, obviously. Because I broadly agree with him, as does every single scientific expert or institution I've ever encountered. We might phrase or emphasise things a little differently, but in essence everyone is agreed; empirical science is limited by our ability to observe the physical universe and by the limits of inductive logic., thus conclusions must be tentative.Or we could go along with your method, which would force us to the conclusion that the ToE is absolute fact. That's because your statements are asinine and betray a total ignorance of the topic. It's because your "example" isn't analogous to real empirical science, it's just an inane logical syllogism based on wordplay and circular reasoning. Your "example" states little more than "If X is always X, then X is always X", which wasn't ever in question.Have you found a way to observe the entirety of space and time? Because if not, the type of logic you're attempting to use - deductive logic - doesn't work with empirical science. This is so well known and so universally accepted that it's just bizarre to see you argue the toss.Again, where are you getting this from? Can you show us any respectable source that agrees with your position?If not, we're left with no option but to assume that you are pulling all of this right out of your arse. Yes, yes. And you have a smelly bum. Your bum smells. It smells of poo.Understanding through discussion ladies and gentlemen!Mutate and Survive

I explained why temperature measurements are tentative and am awaiting a response.The Millikan Oil Drop Experiment provides a good example of the tentative nature of measurements. Millikan observed the speed of motion of charged oil droplets between charged electric plates. He observed that particle motion was in multiples of a base amount that was the charge of the electron. His measurements were, of course, tentative, and as other scientists repeated and refined his experiment the measured charge of the electron changed, gradually increasing over time to its current value, which itself is still tentative.--Percy

So basically, when you agree with someone, he is allowed to make bad anologies? Got it!

For someone claiming that nothing is certain, you sure do seem to be posting this claim
as absolute truth. So you know.

Can you please point to the particular definition that leads you to this detemination? I'm only asking for clarity sake and don't feel like scouring the thread again to try and find the source of this claim. Then secondly, if you please, might you state which definition of ToE you are referring to here. There are so many definitions out there, and I'd like to know which one you specifically refer to here.Thanks.

Please provide the definitions you seem to think are in conflict with each other? The TOE is not something that is defined in two sentences.

Percy is allowed to make whatever kind of analogies he likes, I'm not his Mum.Anyway, it's not a bad analogy, it's actually rather a good analogy, just from a very slightly different perspective that the one I outlined in Message 1024. I never said that the "observation as fact" approach was my own hard and fast opinion on the matter; I think that it's a nuanced subject and that there are multiple reasonable ways of approaching the topic. Yours isn't one of them though. Yours is just broken.So I'm going to ask you again;Can you observe the entire universe throughout all space and time? If not, how are you supposed to know whether you've got all the relevant data or not?Can you back up your claims about the scientific method with any credible source? And given that you definitely can't, will you ever acknowledge that you have no sources?Come on sensei, you can do better than these content-free messages. You've actually staked out a position for once, don't you want to defend it?Mutate and Survive

Hi WookieeB,I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick mate.I'm not saying that the ToE actually is "an absolute fact" in the strictest sense of that term. That is not my opinion. It is a theory, held tentatively, but nonetheless at a very high level of confidence. That is both my opinion and the standard position amongst scientists.I am simply following sensei's absurd and scientifically illiterate argument to its logical conclusion, reductio ad absurdum if you will. He seems to think that we can make a bunch of observations, decide that we know enough and - bingo! - absolute fact! This is, of course, a misreading of the scientific method. sensei clearly isn't familiar with the subject. I'm just trying, in vain, to get him to see that. It hardly matters. Any definition you chose could be "proved" by sensei's unscientific method. That's the point; his method doesn't work.Mutate and Survive