Posted on 09/09/2007 5:17:43 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
I’ll be the first to concede that my views don’t align with recent “new” definitions of principles older than either of us.
That’s quite all right. I find the older definitions a little more sane.
I'm sorry that you have managed to misread my posts and my links that badly. Try again. Or better yet, go natter at someone else. I have little patience for people who aren't able to hold up their end of the discussion.
There is nothing "new" about my "defintion [sic] of science".
... said “new” defintion having been developed by people who really want to believe something that cannot be proven through true scientific process.
Look, if you're not going to address what I actually wrote, and instead are just going to keep standing on your soapbox preaching to the crowd reading from your favorite scripts, count me out.
It is called “preponderance of evidence.” Pulling together lots of evidence YOU believe supports your theory. It is the cart before the horse. It is a case of wanting to believe a theory to be fact, and diligently looking around for enough evidence to convince yourself that your theory is valid. It is saying “I have concluded that K is true, and I’m citing A and B to support my conclusion.” It is still only your conclusion, your opinion, your belief, which doesn’t prove anything. Perponderance of evidence is one of two methods of PERSUASION used in the legal arena. The other is evidence beyond beyond any reasonable doubt. Preponderance of evidence is the weaker of the two. It is considered less “solid” than evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, hence it is limited to civil cases. Criminal cases require evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Neither are scientific.
Yet again, you're beating your favorite straw man here. If you ever care to get around to discussing what I actually wrote, do let me know.
Both are methods of PERSUASION used in legal cases where the event alledged to have occurred cannot be re-created. Being able to re-create the event alledged to have occurred is the scientific standard... perhaps until recent times.
Look, I already directed you to a link which explains how the scientfic method works, and how it very effectively tests possible explanations of how things occurred which cannot practically be re-created, and it bears little if any resemblance to what you're rambling on about here. If you ever decide to actually read what I wrote, and talk about *that*, feel free to try again.
Nonetheless, re-creating the alledged event is still the requirement for absolute unequivocal proof.
Actually, no, it isn't, and you'd know that if you bothered to learn any epistemology. Why don't you go learn something about the topic before you attempt to pontificate about it?
Anything less than that is analysis and conclusion, in other words merely your opinion, which you may attempt to PERSUADE others into, but it doesn’t PROVE anything.
Excuse me while I roll my eyes... Sorry, but analysis is analysis, it's not "mere opinion". Evidence is not "mere opinion". Theories which can make successful predictions time and time again about things that were not yet known or tested prior to the prediction are not "mere opinion". Theories which can be used to produce working processes which produce real-world results are not "mere opinion". Evolutionary biology, which has all this and more, is not "mere opinion".
If you think that there are only two kinds of things in the world, either "proven" in the mathematical sense or "mere opinion" in the sense that they're all equally groundless and just a matter of personal preference, then you've got a remarkably simplistic, black-and-white way of looking at things, which is laughably naive.
Sorry, but different propositions can and are assigned different levels of confidence, depending upon how much evidentiary support they have and how many validation/falsification tests they've passed. Things don't simply fall into two categories, "proven" and "who the hell knows". I'm astounded you're not aware of this.
Persuasion is not proof.
I never said that it was. Yet again, it sure would be nice if you could bother to actually read, understand, and then respond to something I've actually written for a change, instead of just bloviating about your own pet subjects.
In the case of evolution, I’m holding to the scientific standard.
No, you're not. You're rejecting every scientific standard of evaluating a theory except for your own impossibly narrow critiera:
Re-create the event in a sufficiently controlled environment, and I’ll believe it.
You would have been right at home on the OJ jury -- "hey, unless someone can kill Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman all over again in exactly the same way while I'm watching, you ain't convincin' me of nothin'!"
There are more methods of scientific validation than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I add another requriement.
Of course you do.
Evolutionary features must sustain through three subsequent generations. Why? Because sustanance through only one generation is proof of mutation, not evolution.
You're obviously unclear on several concepts, but your "requriement [sic]" isn't a problem, as evolutionary changes do indeed persist across generations. The novel evolutionary features documented in the links I provided you have done so.
Of course you do.
Evolutionary features must be unique from all other features. They cannot be copies of an existing feature. Examples: Legs must exist where no legs existed before. Wings must exist where no wings existed before. Gills must exist where no gills existed before. Lungs must exist where no lungs existed before. You get the point.
Yes, I "get the point" that you don't understand even the fundamentals of evolutionary biology. Disallowing modification of existing features when evaluating evolution is like disallowing movement when evaluating physics.
Darwin discussed exaption and modification extensively in his 1859 book -- you're *way* behind on your reading.
If you want to go testing some process that doesn't involve modification, then feel free to toodle off and do so, but don't call whatever it is you're studying it "evolution", becase if you do you'll be seriously misusing the term.
I am sure the lurkers have seen enough to make up their minds.
How so? Intelligent design is dead end because... why? Evolution is alive becasue... why?
For the reasons I gave in the post I linked to you when I wrote that... I guess it never occurred to you to just read what I wrote.
Why is one hypothesis dead, while another alive, when both are based on the same thing, conjecture?
Because contrary to your misrepresentation, evolutionary biology is *not* based on "conjecture".
Oh wait, never mind, I figured it out. That is your *opinion*... which means nothing to me.
I already explained the difference to you in my posts last night. If you're not even going to read them, if you're not even going to bother to understand them, if you're not going to even bother addressing what I actually wrote and are just going to keep coming back with your hand-waving "it's all just opinion, nothing more", then you have nothing of value to add to the discussion. You're stuck on your own one talking point and can't deal with any of my own points, so it's fruitless to continue.
Why have I generally not responded to your nor Coyoteman's assertions?
Because you're not able to deal with what we actually wrote, thus you just keep waving your one-size-fits-all response:
Simple. They are your *opinions*. I generally don't argue with someone's opinion. You are quite entitled to your opinion.
I gave more than just my opinion, but you are obviously unable to deal with the material itself.
I regret to inform you that your one-note "it's all just opinion, thus I can make it all go away by labeling anything and everything as 'just opinion'" attempt at dodging the real-world evidence isn't fooling anyone, and it only makes you look silly.
I sometimes do question what appear to be logic flaws, as in: If you assume creation to be false because it hasn't been proven, and assume evolution to be true even though it hasn't been proven, is that not intellectually dishonest? Is that not a case of simply rejecting what you want to reject, and believing what you want to believe?
If I ever actually said anything like that, *then* feel free to label it illogical. In the meantime, it looks like just another straw man you're beating up because you're unable to deal with what I've actually written.
I have the same view of both evolution and creation.
Of course you do.
Frankly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
This does not surprise me.
I accept that we are here, and focus on making the best of it. I deal in the here and now. I don't live in the past, nor in the futue.
You're not doing very well with the present, either, since you don't believe that viruses and bacteria can cause illness, and that medicines are poison...
Only reason I'm in this discussion is for a little intellectual sparring... and a discussion on evolution is usually a great place for intellectual sparring. Why? Becuase it tends to get emotional. When people get eomotional, logic tends to fly out the window.
So you admit you're trolling, instead of here to learn something about the topics being discussed. Got it. I long suspected it, but it's nice to hear you openly admit it.
I'm done with gpk9 now.
Now we get to wait and see whether PurpleMountains is ever going respond to my challenge that he put up for examination the anti-evolution "discovery" from Behe that he considers the very strongest example...
I can clear it up Dave:
Coyote is a propagandist, not a scientist. Propagandists say whatever is expedient at the moment, and there is no requirement that it make any sense, or have any continuity, as long as it is being offered in derrision of the opposition.
"Proof has no place in science."
Then you say
"Those who say ... "[evolution] is not proven science" are either woefully ignorant of how science works, or blatantly dishonest in their arguments."
Could you clear up the confusion for us, sir?
Glad to. You engaged in the traditional and dishonest creationist practice of quote mining, that is, changing a quote to give it a different meaning.
Here are the pertinent lines from my original post:
Proof has no place in science. Science builds and tests theories. ...See the difference?Those who say, evolution is "just a theory" and "it is not proven science" are either woefully ignorant of how science works, or blatantly dishonest in their arguments.
Science deals in facts and theories, not proof. Yet creationists berate the theory of evolution for being a theory! And then they berate it for not being "proven science!"
Both of these statements, and many more, come either from creationists being woefully ignorant of how science works, or being blatantly dishonest in their arguments (as I said originally).
Once again, you really should study more science and less apologetics.
Here is a definition which may help you (from Cal Tech's website):
Proof. A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.The colloquial meaning of ‘proof’ causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician’s meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law." Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of…"
I rest my case!
Trolling?
If engaging the logic behind one’s arguments is trolling, then I guess I’m trolling. I view it as intellectual debate... which, if I understand it correctly, is quite permissable on FreeRepublic.
I took some time today to read through some of the material you sourced.
I read “Nothing In Biology Makes Sense Except In The Light Of Evolution”, “Evolution Is A Fact And A Theory”, and read through portions of the 29 whatevers.
In a nutshell here is what I found:
1) Evolution must be fact, and is accepted as fact, because nothing else explains what we see.
2) We can’t demonstrate it, and don’t quite know how it might work, but we assume it, because gosh darnit we just can’t point to anything else to explain what we see.
3) Ok, here’s how an occurrance of evolution might happen under this circumstance and / or that circumstance, if this and / or that influence and / or series of influences were to occur, and if said occurrance were to occur, we conclude that multiple successive progressive coordinated occurrances would also occur over gosh knows how long, which we assume would eventually yield a markedly different creature.
4) If anyone out there doesn’t buy into all this (speculation / assumption / extrapolation / conclusion / hypothecation / deduction), they’re just (ignorant / crazy / mentally challenged / stupid / dumb / nuts / insane / behind the times / not with it man).
The fact is, wherever there is an example of organized matter performing specific functions there is evidence of intelligent design, because it is the essence and function of intelligent design to organize thoughts, information, and substance.
There are innumerable examples of organized matter performing specific functions in the known universe, all the way down to the behavior of particle matter - the basic elements as we have been given to define them. Hence it is neither unreasonable, unscientific, or particularly religious to surmise intelligent design as party to the orderly universe science is given to observe.
I suppose as long as we know what are your working definitions we can accept your beliefs and conclusions, despite the fact that, like today's mainstream media, you appear unwilling to admit to any lack of objectivity.
Nevertheless, until you understand how much faith is involved in the practice of science I will count you as a mere partisan when it comes to making proclamations with regard to what is "proven" and what is not.
Fester! Long time no see. How are you doing?
P.S. Evolution is not science. It is religion.
Not.
Yes. You admitted as much when you admitted that you were here to "spar", and because you liked seeing people get "emotional", not to learn anything or discuss the issue on its merits. That's the very definition of a trolling.
If engaging the logic behind one’s arguments is trolling,
It isn't, and that's not what I said. Your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth in order to trigger a reaction is once again trolling. If you were actually going to "engage the logic behind one's arguments", you would have done so by now. Instead, you've just repeatedly misrepresented what I actually have said, and railed against claims that I myself never made. Trolls do that.
then I guess I’m trolling.
Yes, I guess you are.
I read “Nothing In Biology Makes Sense Except In The Light Of Evolution”, “Evolution Is A Fact And A Theory”, and read through portions of the 29 whatevers.
In a nutshell here is what I found:
1) Evolution must be fact, and is accepted as fact, because nothing else explains what we see.
That's not what those materials said. You're trolling again instead of dealing with what the source material actually says.
2) We can’t demonstrate it, and don’t quite know how it might work, but we assume it, because gosh darnit we just can’t point to anything else to explain what we see.
Once again, you're just making it up as you go along, instead of discussing the actual material. *cough*troll*cough*.
3) Ok, here’s how an occurrance of evolution might happen under this circumstance and / or that circumstance, if this and / or that influence and / or series of influences were to occur, and if said occurrance were to occur, we conclude that multiple successive progressive coordinated occurrances would also occur over gosh knows how long, which we assume would eventually yield a markedly different creature.
Yeah, sure, that's what it says. Uh huh. Look, you're not going to rile me by misrepresenting the source material, you're just making yourself look like what you are, and you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.
4) If anyone out there doesn’t buy into all this (speculation / assumption / extrapolation / conclusion / hypothecation / deduction), they’re just (ignorant / crazy / mentally challenged / stupid / dumb / nuts / insane / behind the times / not with it man).
More misrepresentations from gpk9 instead of honest examination and discussion of the source material... Let's have a show of hands -- who's surprised?
Particularly well since I've discovered ants hold up much better in a magnetron than does chocolate. Thanks.
If you're going to try to troll me, you'll have to do a lot better than that. I've been at this for over thirty years. I've seen your kind of antics hundreds of times before, and with far more originality. The only emotional reaction you stir in me is weariness.
Shoo. Run back to your home under the bridge.
If anyone wonders why I don't spend much time here any more, it's because even the *trolls* are stuck in a rut and haven't had an original idea in months, much less the more earnest people who are still left. I have to go elsewhere to find stimulating conversation among people who have witty and informative things to say. Years ago I used to be able to find that here, but the quality of the membership has gone steadily downhill since then. It's a shame.
Hey, your doing science now!
(But I think with ants, you'll eventually have to escalate to nukes. Do it during the day when the neighbors are at work!)
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.