Skip to comments.
Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists
London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^
| 04 July 2004
| Times of London Editorial
Posted on 07/04/2004 5:19:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,061-1,080, 1,081-1,100, 1,101-1,120 ... 1,201-1,207 next last
To: ChevyZ28
it all comes back down to chemical reactions, no one has ever been able to recreate.That's a biased, but reasonable statement. The question is, what is signified by our inability to recreate something. Does it mean it is impossible? Or does it mean we don't know everything?
A hundred years ago we could neither understand nor create nuclear fusion. So what did that mean?
1,081
posted on
07/13/2004 1:44:04 PM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: js1138; longshadow
No, it equals 1720ROTFLMAO!
To: longshadow
...the induction is NEVER used to prove anything. Instead, induction's role is limited to "extrapolating"...Extrapoaltion is pretty much a matter of applying mathematics and algorithms. What happens in induction is not really understood. The phrase "jumping to conclusions" comes to mind. Calling it a creative process seems circular.
1,083
posted on
07/13/2004 2:22:18 PM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: js1138
And everyone knows that a circle is not an ellipse. Are those wildly elliptical ellipses? hehe
Not to pick nits, but in the Popperian formulation of science, the induction is NEVER used to prove anything. Instead, induction's role is limited to "extrapolating" from limited data a possible explanation that would be universally applicable. And thus an hypothesis is born.
Whether or not it survives to acheive the status of "theory" is entirely a deductive affair, assuming the hypothesis is amenable to falsification.
- Bone A looks like bone B.
- Therefore bone A comes from a descendent from an ancestor of the animal which possessed bone B.
That sounds like airtight "deductive" logic.
1,085
posted on
07/13/2004 3:08:24 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(and I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
To: js1138
Extrapoaltion is pretty much a matter of applying mathematics and algorithms. What happens in induction is not really understood. The phrase "jumping to conclusions" comes to mind. Calling it a creative process seems circular. Yes, which is why I used "extrapolation" in quote marks.
Whatever it is, it is the step of going from the data of a finite number of cases to proposing some sort of general priciple that applies in all cases.
To: RadioAstronomer
Never mind the man behind the curtain. It's just RA making inane posts again. :-)
To: longshadow
Not to pick nits, but in the Popperian formulation of science, the induction is NEVER used to prove anything. Instead, induction's role is limited to "extrapolating" from limited data a possible explanation that would be universally applicable. And thus an hypothesis is born. Whether or not it survives to acheive the status of "theory" is entirely a deductive affair, assuming the hypothesis is amenable to falsification. Yes. I wrote to hastily. What I had in mind, but didn't say, is that the hypothesis needs to make some predictions, which are then verified as indeed being so. Which means that the hypothesis has verifiably survived a falsification test. I trust that Popper will now cease spinning.
1,088
posted on
07/13/2004 4:11:43 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(#26,303, registered since the 20th Century, never suspended, over 184 threads posted.)
To: AndrewC
Trolling for suckers tonight?
1,089
posted on
07/13/2004 5:44:27 PM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: AndrewC
1,090
posted on
07/13/2004 5:45:32 PM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: <1/1,000,000th%
i already mentioned moles. this has chemical applications, and so, it does. thanks though :)
To: longshadow
i do think i found why its so hard for your people to go with what i am saying. i am using a real world application, that is, science and philosophy. you are only working in science. this is my bad for not recognizing the blend when showing math.
I'm not going to bother with checking if i used the word "circumstance" or not. if i did, i shouldn't have. its not under a specific way of looking at it if they are equal, its more a matter of whats "good enough" for a specific application.
cutting an apple into thirds by hand is not exact, but it can be "good enough" to be fair. i am also not stating i support one thing over the other, i am showing that things aren't always what we claim. it is an unbiased observation, not an opinion.
Kerry swings his opinion like a hammer (a single war, which has not changed circumstance, he has gone back and forth supporting) i am steadfast that math is subjective depending on the application involved. (an idea of numbers is different, depending on the usage)
its like the joke about the man in the woods who has a philosopher, an engineer, and a physicist walk in and see his wood-burning stove is 3 feet above the ground.
the scientist looks at it and says "ah, this man knows heat radiates, so he wants to spread the heat as far as he can by raising it."
the philosopher says "no, he obviously wanted the heat and light to provide him with a new view of life, so he raised it to look at things in a new way."
and the engineer said "no, no, no, you both got it wrong, he raised it because it gets real cold here at night, he sleeps under it to keep warm at night"
the man speaks up at this point, and points out "actually, i just ran out of pipe."
To: Doctor Stochastic
ah, you qualified it though. "real line"
please, what is the exact value of the square root of -1? you cant come up with a simple single value.
To: MacDorcha; Doctor Stochastic
please, what is the exact value of the square root of -1? you cant come up with a simple single value.square root(-1) = i
To: RadioAstronomer
Negative Placemarker1/2
1,095
posted on
07/13/2004 7:27:02 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(#26,303, registered since the 20th Century, never suspended, over 184 threads posted.)
To: MacDorcha
the reason you cant get a yes or no is because there is not one. Not one what?
this is a mathematical principle. .999... approaches 1, but is so close, it is often used as 1.
What's 1.0000... - 0.9999...? It's 0.0000..., right?
1,096
posted on
07/13/2004 7:36:20 PM PDT
by
Ichneumon
("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
To: PatrickHenry
Negative Placemarker1/2
Oh, get real.
1,097
posted on
07/13/2004 7:39:48 PM PDT
by
Ichneumon
("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
To: RadioAstronomer
yes, "i" is the square root of -1. now, whats its value? "value" is an amount or numeric quantity, a representation of an amount is just that, a representation.
To: Ichneumon
why yes it is. where does the 0 end though? each 0 must account for every two 9's.
Bone A looks like bone B. Therefore bone A comes from a descendent from an ancestor of the animal which possessed bone B. That sounds like airtight "deductive" logic. No it doesn't, nor does it sound like anything resembling what paleontologists actually do to establish phylogenies. Troll.
(So far, we have a 1-to-1 correspondence between posting in colored fonts and being disingenuous.)
1,100
posted on
07/13/2004 7:44:00 PM PDT
by
Ichneumon
("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,061-1,080, 1,081-1,100, 1,101-1,120 ... 1,201-1,207 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson