|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bad science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I think this was meant as a reply to my post.
quote: I guess I don't understand the argument. You must believe that the earth is at the center of the universe and all the planets and stars go around it -- heliocentrism has only been around for 400 years. And germs were only discovered about 150 years ago -- so do you believe that disease is caused by witchcraft? -
quote: But history leaves some evidence around. Not all possible histories are consistent with the available evidence. That is why literal Genesis creationism was rejected by scientists even before Darwin, and why the theory of evolution has become accepted. -
quote: I have always found this line of argument interesting. As Ned points out, you give the appearance of believing that evidence can be interpreted in any way the observer wishes -- a conclusion that would startle scientists even in the non-biological sciences, as well as criminal forensics experts. Do you really believe that evidence is really that malleable? "These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not." -- Ernie Cline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MUTTY6969 Member (Idle past 6191 days) Posts: 65 From: ARIZONA Joined: |
quote: Wow, and you have a B.S degree in Biology. I find that very hard to believe. Where did you get this degree if I might ask?
Let's stick close to the topic and skip the credential shopping. Edited by AdminJar, : guidelines advisory Steve Rushin: "By the age of 18, the average American has witnessed 200,000 acts of violence on television, most of them occurring during Game 1 of the NHL playoff series."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MUTTY6969 Member (Idle past 6191 days) Posts: 65 From: ARIZONA Joined: |
You do know laws and theories are not in some hierarchy? They are completely different terms where one does not become the other . ever . it’s not like poof we now have enough evidence to put this theory into law. This is why I asked where did you get your B.S. degree; because in no science curriculum would you get that confused.
But as Adminjar posted, no need to reply to the education question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Head Eagle Inactive Member |
Chiroptera,
Where would you get the idea that I believe "evidence" can change? I thought I said that evidence doesn't change -- just your perception of it. Evidence is evidence. It just lies there to be interpreted. The soundness of the interpretation is the question. I've noticed that the tendency with some in this forum is to put words into the mouth of opponents; also to assume a lot of things not in evidence. Your opponent may not be as much a dolt as you presume. Then again, it just might be your interpretation of the evidence. Lan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Then, why has it been so hard to turn the Theory of evolution into Law? A moment's thought would have told you that this question must be based on a misconception on your part. Consider : if the distinction between theory and law is what you think it is, then why do the most ardent supporters of evolution always talk of the "theory of evolution" and never of the "law of evolution"? And a little research would have shown you that a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for some phenomenon that incorporates facts and laws (and, sometimes, other theories). In particular, the theory of evolution consists of the law of natural selection (including sexual selection) and the laws of genetics. Why are you debating "Is It Science?" without a knowledge of the most basic vocabulary of science? Oh, hang on --- that is why, isn't it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
And a little research would have shown you that a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for some phenomenon that incorporates facts and laws (and, sometimes, other theories). I was thinking that "theory" was just another word for "law." So it would be improper to speak of the "theory of gravity"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Religion and science? One real and one dead? And this is a response to my post how, exactly? I'm afraid I'm simply not understanding your argument. Please clarify.
To reply to your challenge, let me first ask you to define religion. This is a loaded question. Be careful. Two things here. One, I'm afraid definitional games centering around religion would be considered off-topic for this thread. Here we are, after all, attempting to define science and determine whether evolution or other biological concepts and theories do in fact fit the definition. Your question inre religion would be very appropriate in another thread. I'm serious, the Admins here get very testy and cranky if a thread starts going too far off-topic. I have no particular desire to be suspended for something like this, especially when there are other threads for that discussion. Secondly, there was no "challenge" in the post to which you were responding. I merely asked you to reflect on the consequences of your statement concerning the validity of an argument based on the amount of time an idea has been around. Acceptance of ancestor worship, propitiation of nature spirits, and attribution of anthropomorphic benevolence/malignancy to natural phenomena have been around much longer than 4000 years. Thus the logical extension of your intimation (that the length of time an idea has been held is correlated to its validity) would be to accept even older beliefs. I'm sure you don't agree that we should be making sacrifices to thunderstorms. This was merely an attempt to get you to realize this argument is invalid. I'll be happy to discuss whatever evidence you feel is compelling concerning the Flud on the appropriate thread. Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Evidence is evidence. It just lies there to be interpreted. The soundness of the interpretation is the question. Once again, open a thread, show the evidence and then show a coherent different interpretation. Otherwise it would be appropriate to shut up. Edited by NosyNed, : chose a better word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi ENC,
You neglected to address the main thrust of Chiroptera's post and focused on just the last sentence, which you might have misinterpreted. I don't think Chiroptera intended his use of the word "malleable" to imply that evidence changes - the context was still the interpretation of evidence. Chiroptera was mainly inquiring why you believe that the length of time an idea has been held is related to its accuracy. A good scientific approach would be to accept ideas according to the quality of their supporting evidence and the degree to which that evidence has been replicated. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I was thinking that "theory" was just another word for "law." So it would be improper to speak of the "theory of gravity"?
I would not have a problem with "theory of gravity." But the theory is not the same as the law. The law is the relationships observed, in this case a mathematical formulation. The theory is the explanatory background that connects the numerical quantities with our experience. At least that's the distinction I would make.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The law is the relationships observed, in this case a mathematical formulation. The theory is the explanatory background that connects the numerical quantities with our experience. So a "law" is some specific idea within a more general idea that we call a "theory"? Let's say the germ theory of disease. What would be a law that that theory would include?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I didn't have any idea that you believe that, and, if it weren't for Percy's reply to you, I wouldn't even have known how you could have interpreted what I wrote in this way. When I asked whether you really feel that the evidence is "malleable", I was asking whether you really feel that one can make any interpretation of it at all. That is the implication I got from your post; it is certainly what previously creationists have meant when they have said things similar to you. -
quote: I'm not sure what you mean here; there are several possibilities. Do you mean how close the interpretation is to reality? Well, unless the crime suspect actually confesses, or we can drill a hole all the way to the center of the earth, or we can go back in time and witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence with our own eyes, then this becomes an epistemological problem that is unsolvable. If you mean how self-consistent an interpretation is, how consistent it is with the entire body of evidence, and how consistent it is with evidence that is observed after the intepretation is put forward, then I agree with you: some interpretations are more sound than others; some interpretations are obvious when the data are examined, and other interpretations are very, very untenable. A murder suspect can claim that the victim was killed by magical fairies and make up ad hoc explanations why the evidence seems to point to him; someone can claim that the earth's core is made of ice cream and make up ad hoc explanations why a nickel-iron composition with the outer core molten seems to be a better fit to the data; and a person can claim that the Founding Fathers were forced to sign the Declaration of Independence as part of an Illuminati conspiracy, a conspiracy that also rewrote their letters to one another and their diaries. These are all possible interpretations of the data; however, one can see these interpretations will be forced and ridiculous. The same with the theory of evolution. It has withstood the scientific tests that have been put toward it. Sure, one can "interpret" the data in favor of creationism, and make up stories about a variable speed of light, changing rates of radiactive decay, hydrological sorting, huge sediment deposits, and what do any of us know about how God works, anyway? But if the ad hoc explanations can't be tested, or, if they can but are shown to be unworkable, then this "interpretation" becomes as ridiculous as killer fairies and the earth's ice cream core. Once seen in their entirety, though, the evidence forms a very distinct pattern, and evolution and common descent are not only a reasonable interpretation, but, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, it becomes perverse to withhold even provisional acceptance of the idea. Facts are facts, and not every "theory" is a reasonable interpretation of the facts. "These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not." -- Ernie Cline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
You'll go crazy trying to figure out the logic behind naming something a law or theory. There are some general rules of thumb that sort of mostly apply, and then you have to take into account the historical context of the 18th and 19th century when they expected that all science would boil down to mathematical relationships that could be termed laws, like Boyle's Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.
It turned out not to be so simple, and the general practice today is to use the word theory for new conceptual frameworks. Even so, new laws crop up in the modern lexicon all the time. For example, there's Moore's Law, named after the Intel co-founder who first noticed that computer power doubles every 18 months. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Head Eagle Inactive Member |
Quetzal,
Since you or your compatriots brought up the opposite of science being religion, it must be O.K. with the admin to pursue it. I'll let you off the hook if you can clarify what you mean by the term "religion" as opposed to science. O.K.? Lan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ENC writes: Since you or your compatriots brought up the opposite of science being religion, it must be O.K. with the admin to pursue it. Perhaps not a safe assumption. Any sub-topic, including religion, is valid for discussion in any thread where it bears directly upon the main topic. If that's the case here, then a digression into the definition of religion is fine, but I don't see a connection, so it should be clearly explained why the digression is relevant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024