Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What you see with your own eyes vs what scientists claim
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 76 of 165 (447532)
01-09-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by sinequanon
01-09-2008 5:04 PM


You need to look back here Message 51
Then citation here Message 55
They were wrong, QED.
Your reply was this:
quote:
There is also general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners, and that further research is warranted.[10][11][12] Though charged as pseudoscience, Dr. William F. Williams, author of Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, notes that acupuncture --"once rejected as 'oriental fakery' -- is now (if grudgingly) recognized as engaged in something quite real."[13]
The compelte facts, as pointed out to you later, are that while acupuncture does have an effect similar to that of massage, it does not have anything approaching the effect claimed by the traditional practitioners - in other words, the claims scientists refuted as pseudoscience were still false.
Besides that, the entire point is that science engages in independant investigation and verification. Despite the fct that scientists originally assumed acupuncture was completely flim-flam, a study was still done, and scientific opinion changed to match the facts (note that the lunatic claims of disease cures from acupuncture are still no more real than Benny Hinn).
When an individual scientist offers his opinion that something sounds ridiculous, that's his professional opinion.
When a scientific journal gives a conclusion based on examination of evidence and independent verification after being run through the peer review process...that's something much different, and with a lot more credibility.
My eyes don't tell me the world is flat.
Of course they do. Can you somehow see the curvature of the Earth? That would be a neat trick. Or do you live in low Earth orbit?
Humanity believed the Earth to be flat for thousands of years before it was finally proven to be a rough sphere - because they beleived what their eyes told them, and they lacked critical information.
When something bad happens to you after stepping on a crack, you may think that stepping on a crack is "bad luck." Later, something else bad may happen, and you may recall that you stepped on a crack again earlier that day. Does this mean that stepping on cracks causes misfortune?
If you see a light flying through the sky that does not appear to be related to "normal" aircraft...is it really an alien spaceship? I mean, you saw what you saw, right?
When you see a cloud that really looks like a horse, what does that mean?
When people use their birthdays and other such significant numbers when buying lottery tickets, does this really affect their chances of winning?
People see patterns where none exist, make the mistake of assuming correlation means cause and effect, and draw conclusions from limited evidence all the time. Hell, we even misremember things later in such a way that they better match our earlier conclusions!
Independent verification and study are the best way to determine facts - even if the later conclusions don't necessarily match what you specifically experienced.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 5:04 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 01-09-2008 5:51 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 80 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 5:58 PM Rahvin has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 165 (447535)
01-09-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by sinequanon
01-09-2008 5:08 PM


Sure, once we get those citations, I will explain how they conflict with my observations.
WEAK!
The citations don't exist and neither does your persona evidence. You're avoiding the issue because you have nothing. You're just making up crap.
I'm sorry I wasted my keystrokes on you.
Get back under the bridge, troll.

You know, you could just assume, for the sake of argument, that the citations have been provided and then tell us your observation.
But that would require that you actually do have something, which I realize you do not.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 5:08 PM sinequanon has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 78 of 165 (447538)
01-09-2008 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by sinequanon
01-09-2008 5:08 PM


Sure, once we get those citations, I will explain how they conflict with my observations.
Science does not deal with attempting to prove negatives. You won't find a journal that says "Behavior that is neither learned nor instinctual does not exist." You'll simply find journals regarding learned behavior and instinctual behavior. You'll note an absence of other behavior, however, because there is no real evidence it exists, and no way to study it.
You may, of course, find a parapsychology paper that experimented with the possibility of "intuition," or other non-learned, non-instinctual behaviors - but the results of such studies have always been inconclusive, their results being so similar to random chance as to show nothing of value.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 5:08 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 6:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 165 (447539)
01-09-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rahvin
01-09-2008 5:41 PM


trying to be fair.
Of course they do. Can you somehow see the curvature of the Earth?
Well, there are places where that is possible, for example on the Bonneville Salt Flats or looking out over the ocean.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rahvin, posted 01-09-2008 5:41 PM Rahvin has not replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 80 of 165 (447543)
01-09-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rahvin
01-09-2008 5:41 PM


I'm not interested in damage control. The scientists were wrong.
Looking out now I see streets and houses. If I go out and walk a short distance I can see hills.
Alternatively you can try and tell me what I see, but you'll have to go and argue about that with yourself. You can even create a new thread somewhere all for yourself, creating your very own make belief scenarios and arguing against them with yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rahvin, posted 01-09-2008 5:41 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-09-2008 6:11 PM sinequanon has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 81 of 165 (447545)
01-09-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by sinequanon
01-09-2008 5:58 PM


I'm not interested in damage control. The scientists were wrong.
Your quote does not, however, support believing your own perspective when it is refuted by science. You're picking and choosing here, sinequanon, and not following through with your own topic. The result of the acupuncture studies have not proven science wrong regarding "chi" or the fantastical claims of tradition. They've shown that laying down and allowing a traditional therapist to perform a relaxation treatment on your body is (gasp!) relaxing, and has similar benefits to massage.
That doesn't mean acupuncture is a cure for anything, or that there is some strange energy field that can be manipulated within the human body with properly placed needles.
Not interested in damage control? You're not interested in responding to refutations.
Looking out now I see streets and houses. If I go out and walk a short distance I can see hills.
...but not that the Earth is roughly spherical. Come on, sinequanon, you know exactly what I meant. The perspective on an individual residing nearly anywhere on Earth will not reflect the curvature of the Earth, and the reasonable conclusion from that data alone is that the Earth is flat (not that it doesn't have mountains or hills or houses, but that the shape of the world as a whole is that of a plane with certain raised features).
Alternatively you can try and tell me what I see, but you'll have to go and argue about that with yourself. You can even create a new thread somewhere all for yourself, creating your very own make belief scenarios and arguing against them with yourself.
Would that be a dismissal? Let's leave forum moderation to the actual moderators, shall we?

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 5:58 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 6:40 PM Rahvin has not replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 82 of 165 (447552)
01-09-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rahvin
01-09-2008 5:48 PM


Here we go again. Let me correct you.
You'll simply find journals regarding learned behavior and instinctual behavior. You'll note an absence of other behavior, however, because there is no real evidence it exists, and no way to study it.
Should read you'll simply find journals regarding learned behavior and instinctual behavior. You'll note an absence of other behavior, however, because scientists have no real evidence it exists, and scientists have no way to study it.
So why did the paper base a conclusion on an inconclusive statement when the word "know" would have been fine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rahvin, posted 01-09-2008 5:48 PM Rahvin has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 165 (447556)
01-09-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by sinequanon
01-09-2008 3:16 PM


I want a citation that
i) ALL innate behaviours in animals are evolved behaviours
ii) ALL non-evolved behaviours are learned behaviours
I gave you a reference to Lorenz, who has been credited with starting the innate instinct versus learned behaviour dichotomy - a position that looks to me to be established science. If you want to argue that it is not established at all, then that's fine - I don't think this topic is the place to present it, the 'spider' thread would be infinitely more suitable for that.
The idea that instincts are evolved is also pretty much a settled issue as far as established science goes, and I gave you Darwin as a starting point there.
You are welcome to argue that either of the two points have not been established enough to merit a lack of citation. If the best you can come up with is that you have higher citation demands than the Behavioural Ecology journal, I really don't see this as being that big a deal. If this is it. If this is what you wanted to get across in this thread, then you've done it. I feel your opening posts were proposing something a little more radical than all this. So as I say, from the evidence you've given so far - we're not doing too bad if this is as bad as it gets.
I appreciate your sense of haste in wanting to 'move on' from this awkward point.
I would prefer to try and advance the topic when signs it is going to stall emerge. The sense of haste you feel I assure you is nothing to do with any awkward points. If you want to continue discussing it, I'd appreciate you pointing out an alternative to the suggested learned or evolved dichotomy and show how the evidence in the paper also suggests this as an equal contender. That would be another way to move the discussion forward, and since you have revealed you could conceive of behaviour modifying entities I rather hoped you could do us the honours of sharing them.
The paper in question is symptomatic of how scientific concepts can be reinforced without support.
Once again, I don't see the problem in saying that the evidence suggests that the crows have learned or evolved the skill since that is exactly what it does suggest. You have not been able so far to tell me what other option is possible; if and when you do we might get somewhere.
Once again, if relying on a common agreed body of knowledge to build your paper is the worst example of scientific gaffes, anthropocentrism, and scientists claiming something absolutely which is contrary to personal experience or observation - then science is as close to a perfect intellectual endeavour we can ever expect to come from primates.
But I'm sure you can find much more obvious, blatant or shocking gaffes that we can explore - I can't believe there is so little room for improvement. If you really want to get away from this discussion with the idea that I find it awkward, then perhaps for the sake of the topic, it might be prudent for me to take the 'hit'. Seriously though, a paper which doesn't cite something to your satisfaction, which you perceive to be entrenching an un-evidenced position...is that it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 3:16 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 6:49 PM Modulous has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 84 of 165 (447559)
01-09-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
01-09-2008 6:11 PM


Your quote does not, however, support believing your own perspective when it is refuted by science. You're picking and choosing here, sinequanon, and not following through with your own topic.
It was a response to a specific request asking where scientists were ever all wrong. Go back and read it properly. If you think the question was irrelevant, take it up with the person who asked it.
Your point about 'chi' etc. is irrelevant to that point.
and the reasonable conclusion from that data alone is that the Earth is flat
That's the problem. I am talking about what I see, and you are talking about "reasonable conclusions". They are your "reasonable conclusions", not mine. Do we need more yellow highlighting here. Scientists do like to omit the possessive.
Would that be a dismissal?
Not at all. It's an invitation. Please go ahead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-09-2008 6:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 85 of 165 (447560)
01-09-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Modulous
01-09-2008 6:33 PM


I gave you a reference to Lorenz, who has been credited with starting the innate instinct versus learned behaviour dichotomy - a position that looks to me to be established science. If you want to argue that it is not established at all, then that's fine - I don't think this topic is the place to present it, the 'spider' thread would be infinitely more suitable for that.
The idea that instincts are evolved is also pretty much a settled issue as far as established science goes, and I gave you Darwin as a starting point there.
I am sorry, for a citation, I am going to need something far more specific that 'Lorenz' or 'Darwin'. You might as well have said nothing for all that is worth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 01-09-2008 6:33 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 01-10-2008 2:40 AM sinequanon has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 86 of 165 (447603)
01-10-2008 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by sinequanon
01-09-2008 6:49 PM


I am sorry, for a citation, I am going to need something far more specific that 'Lorenz' or 'Darwin'. You might as well have said nothing for all that is worth.
Is there any particular reason you have decided to ignore my points and just repeat one of your own?
Let me add that I don't see the need to trapse around ethology and evolution papers trying to find something to satisfy you because I don't think anything will. So let me ask:- do you agree that there exists a collection of papers in which evidence for innate behaviour is given (whether or not you agree with this conclusion)? Do you agree that there exists a collection of papers in which evidence for learned behaviour is given? Do you agree that there is exists a collection of paper wherein evidence for the evolution of innate behaviours is given?
Now, does there exist any evidence whatsoever (presumably from your own eyes given the topic of the thread) for any other mechanism for the acquisition of knowledges/skills/behaviours?
Since we are repeating points let me also repeat yet again: Seriously though, a paper which doesn't cite something to your satisfaction, which you perceive to be entrenching an un-evidenced position...is that it? I'm sure you can find much more obvious, blatant or shocking gaffes that we can explore - I can't believe there is so little room for improvement
Now, I don't know about you, but I'm still not seeing much potential fruit for our labour. Even if you crushingly defeated me and I whimpered that I concede the point, you are left with a point about citation standards. That seems rather lame for the amount of effort involved, if you had simply wanted to say 'some journals have quite lax standards of citation', I would have just taken your word for it and we could have avoided any intervening hullabaloo.
If you want to however, we can have the thread about preference of our own senses over that of scientists (a potentially interesting discussion) devolve into bickering over a single sentence in a paper about crow behaviour. It seems to me that the correctness of the innate vs learned dichotomy could get its own thread (in the science fora rather than the coffee house), and we could concentrate on the more interesting topic at hand.
I asked you
quote:
I'm not sure that [the littering of anthropocentric gaffes] is as big a problem as you think in the sciences but I'm willing to be convinced. Do you have any examples of scientists doing this that we should look out for?
The OP looks to me to provide an interesting starting point for a discussion of empiricism, fallibility of perception, the conservatism of the scientific community and all this. And look at it, it's turned into something much less interesting. I'd really like to move on to the points raised in the earlier posts and I have already stated I'm happy to concede the citation point if it means we can do that. If you really really want to discuss the citation point, I'd suggest we move the thread into a science forum.
Otherwise, you've made your point about it, myself and others have given their arguments in retort and I think the discussion is best served by exploring other territory perhaps closer linked to the OP and the first few posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by sinequanon, posted 01-09-2008 6:49 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by sinequanon, posted 01-10-2008 11:07 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 89 by sinequanon, posted 01-10-2008 11:36 AM Modulous has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 87 of 165 (447656)
01-10-2008 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Modulous
01-10-2008 2:40 AM


I am sorry, for a citation, I am going to need something far more specific that 'Lorenz' or 'Darwin'. You might as well have said nothing for all that is worth.
Is there any particular reason you have decided to ignore my points and just repeat one of your own?
Of course. You are making points based on things for which you can't provide a citation. So I repeated the request for a citation.
Clearly, your tactic was to give me a reference that was so vague that you yourself find it ridiculous...
Modulous writes:
Let me add that I don't see the need to traipse around ethology and evolution papers trying to find something to satisfy you because I don't think anything will.
(Typo trapse corrected and colour added)
You've also combined it with your bizarre excuse that you won't bother with a citation because I wouldn't be satisfied with it. I don't recall you ever accepting that as a valid excuse from anyone.
And you think you sound reasonable?
Failure to produce citation by Modulous. I'll leave it at that and address other points in a separate post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 01-10-2008 2:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nwr, posted 01-10-2008 11:35 AM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 01-10-2008 11:51 AM sinequanon has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 88 of 165 (447663)
01-10-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by sinequanon
01-10-2008 11:07 AM


sinequanon writes:
Failure to produce citation by Modulous.
To me, this all seems to be much ado about nothing.
Personally, I would count as innate those behaviors that are present at birth or that are developmental consequences of what is present at birth. Behaviors that are a consequence of birth defects would therefore be counted as innate, as I use the term. However, a birth defect can have non-genetic causes, so such innate behaviors need not be carried by the genes. Whether or one would say they evolved becomes a question on how broadly one uses the term evolution. Does one consider susceptibility to thalidomide to be evolved, or not? I can't say that I really care one way or the other.
The impression I get from reading this dialog, is that you are trying to trap Modulous into making a strong claim so that you can then spring a counter example. If you want productive dialog on whether "innate/learned" is a valid dichotomy, I would have thought it better for you to give your counter example early in the discussion.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by sinequanon, posted 01-10-2008 11:07 AM sinequanon has not replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 89 of 165 (447666)
01-10-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Modulous
01-10-2008 2:40 AM


First point.
Learned behaviour is a response to experience. If behaviour spontaneously changes it cannot be learned behaviour.
For example, if your capability and behaviour changed as a result of ingesting a drug, would you say that was learned behaviour? I would say it was NOT learned behaviour.
Second point.
The paper focuses on an energy expense model
quote:
Complex and energetically expensive foraging tasks should be shaped by natural selection to be efficient.
One of the factors tested against was kleptoparasitism
quote:
To determine whether crows adjusted drop height with respect to potential kleptoparasitism, we tested for a correlation between drop height and an index of "kleptoparasite intensity," using the data from all first drops of English walnuts at the Birch Lane site.
In the characterization of prey loss section it says...
quote:
An essential characteristic of any avian prey-dropping system is the likelihood of losing prey before it can be retrieved, such as through kleptoparasitism. Prey loss, if it occurs, might be constant with regard to drop height, or it might increase when a bird drops prey from greater heights.
They fail to consider prey loss decreasing when a bird drops prey from a greater height. Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 01-10-2008 2:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 01-10-2008 11:48 AM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 92 by Modulous, posted 01-10-2008 12:13 PM sinequanon has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 90 of 165 (447669)
01-10-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by sinequanon
01-10-2008 11:36 AM


sinequanon writes:
They fail to consider prey loss decreasing when a bird drops prey from a greater height. Why?
I'm considering the possibility that the further I walk away from the park bench where I left my iPod, the more likely it is to be stolen.
Presumably you're wondering why I'm not considering the likelihood of theft decreasing as I walk further away?
Maybe in the future you'll teach us to consider the possibility that weight loss follows increased food intake and that cars slow down when you stomp on the accelerator.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by sinequanon, posted 01-10-2008 11:36 AM sinequanon has 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