|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 5 From: Austin Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: And you have not answered the question. Do you believe scientific consensus is always correct? Absolutely not. Unlike your beliefs, science is actually falsifiable and correctable. We can actually determine when a theory is wrong and fix it. Not so with dogmatic religious beliefs which have led you to reject the findings of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: If you can't come up with good arguments, you are not worth responding to. The problem is that you judge an argument by the conclusion instead of the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: Wrong again. Another claim that you cannot back up with facts. Just pathetic! Then explain why a nested hierarchy is not a valid piece of evidence for common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
sensei writes: I already explained that it is insufficient. But is it evidence?
Why would it be sufficient. Because you managed to get some predictions out of it? How do you think scientists test theories in science? Here are 29+ predictions, by the way. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: Does not mean that twisting parameters until your model fits, makes it sufficient proof. What parameters have been twisted???
You do realize that theories have changed and even have been rejected after new data arrived, don't you? Yes. One of those theories is separate creation. You do realize that theories are kept if their predictions are supported by observations, correct?
But you don't allow for any critique, because you are a fool defending his precious treasure, ignoring real logic and real science. Who is stopping you from critiquing? Do you think people have to agree with you in order for you to criticize a theory? You are using the logic of superstition, and are not using real science. You think you can throw out a theory if you believe a supernatural deity can exactly mimic a natural process. In real science, if the predictions of a theory match observations then the theory is supported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: You should know for one, that by adding parameters and overfitting, in general, we can get very accurate "predictions" for the data.​ What parameters have been added? What overfitting?
You seem to be under such noobish assumption. What assumptions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: Your assumption that data fit means correct model. So how do you think real science is done??? How do you think a theory is tested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: Not all good fit models are correct. In science, good fit models are tentatively accepted as the correct model. Are we still doing real science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: Being accepted does not mean that the model is correct. Hence the use of the word "tentative". This is how science works. It seems that you reject science in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
sensei writes: Just because you think it's the only way to do science, which is debatable, does not mean that you know how to handle it. What other way is there to do science??? All of science is making predictions and testing those predictions with observations. That's how science works. Do you reject the scientific method?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: You prove again that you are noob. Science is not flawless. That is fact. If you refuse to accept that, then you are noob. So you reject the findings of science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: I reject unsubstantiated claims that you make in the name of science. Like what???
And I reject your misrepresentation of science. What misrepresentations???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
sensei writes: Einstein used thought experiments. Those thought experiments were used to make predictions which were later tested by experiments.
Physicists build mathematical models for quantum fields and particle interactions. And then they test them against observations.
Are those methods not science? Those are just part of the scientific method. What you are describing is the process of producing predictions. Experiments are then used to test those predictions. However, you have already shown that you could care less about testing theories. You don't think a match between experimental results and predictions means anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
sensei writes: You made claims that your model is correct because it is best fit. In the scientific sense, they are correct. This is always meant to be a tentative conclusion that can be changed by further evidence.
You seem to forget that a model is usually an estimate of the unknown mode. So even if you followed all the correct steps, which I doubt, it's still only a model. What else is there in science?
Science does not work the way you present it here. We use models, and there is nothing wrong with that. But you take it too far, claiming that the models are absolute truth or something. They are not! I have never made any claim that any scientific model is absolute truth. You can't even admit that a match between observations and a model is evidence for the model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
sensei writes: I have nothing against using models and testing as tool. Yes, you do. You call it "bad logic". You reject the scientific method.
I have something against people drawing false conclusions from it. You can't even admit that a match between observations and scientific models is evidence for those models. All you do is call it bad logic without ever showing what that bad logic is. You have this really backwards belief that if we don't know something to be absolutely true then we know nothing. That's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024