Posted on 09/20/2005 7:02:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
ITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.
They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.
After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."
That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yep. But remember that if you're not in DOS/Windows, you may need to add 0x0a to that.
No, that's what Occam's razor is, by definition. Your opinion may be that Occam's razor is useless, but that's not an opinion shared by most people in the scientific community.
I expect most scientists would give a positive review of microscopes and karnaugh maps--that doesn't make microscopes or karnaugh maps infallible tools of first resort for selecting between alternative scientific theories.
Einstein's mechanics are infinitely superior to Newton's.
Then why, pray tell, do we still employ Newton's laws for most of our physics-related tasks?
Try using Newton's formulas to figure out what would happen to the trajectory of a neutron star passing by a black hole at 0.85c.
Newton was never faced with this case, just as Ptolomaic mariners were never faced with calculating the perihelion of Mercury. For tasks they were faced with, Occam's razor would eliminate the modern replacements for both theories, on account of their useless extra calculation complexity.
Unlike ancient astronomy, Modern astronomy totally fails to explain to individual humans what the subtle interactions of the stars predict for their personal lives.
And astrology does explain these things? Accurately?
Prove it won't--in a few months, when the stars begin to line up properly. Think you can do so without making astrology a subject of serious scientific inquiry? Once you start, of course, I expect you to label all the astronomy books with a small warning label, and teach astrology in astronomy classrooms for one hour per semester.
Be at one with his noodly appendage, grasshopper.
I never said anything about any tool being infallible.
[Einstein's mechanics are infinitely superior to Newton's.]
Then why, pray tell, do we still employ Newton's laws for most of our physics-related tasks?
Because for velocities in the range that macroscopic objects in our world move at, there's scarcely any distinction between the two. It's like asking why we round numbers.
[And astrology does explain these things? Accurately?]
Prove it won't--in a few months, when the stars begin to line up properly.
All that's necessary to show is that it's failed to give reliable, predictable explanations for people's behavior, which means that thus far, it's been disproved of having any explanatory value.
I never said anything about any tool being infallible.
Great. Do you think we should teach the greek theory of the 4 humors, on account of it's simplicity?
Then why, pray tell, do we still employ Newton's laws for most of our physics-related tasks?
Because for velocities in the range that macroscopic objects in our world move at, there's scarcely any distinction between the two. It's like asking why we round numbers.
So, in other words, for almost all practical uses, the special relativity components of the calculations are utterly useless window dressing--unneeded complexity in violation of Occam's Razor.
All that's necessary to show is that it[astrology] failed to give reliable, predictable explanations for people's behavior, which means that thus far, it's been disproved of having any explanatory value.
The theory that astrology gives accurate readings on people's fates in a few month's, when the stars are properly aligned, has never been tested, much less "disproved". Much in the same way that ID never gets a fair chance at scientific investigation because of the assumption that because you don't currently have any evidence, you don't need to look for it. Unlike with, for example, SETI...where lack of evidence doesn't seem to exercise this curiously selective veto.
you starting to see the problem with this line of reasoning? If you let it into the classroom to discredit it is an excruciatingly bad idea--it would even be a bad idea even if you had a really powerful refutation--which Occam's Razor ain't. Ask those self-same scientists you pointed out were kinda fond of Occam's Razor.
You're forgetting the other component of Occam's razor. It's not the simplest explanation that's best, but the simplest one that can actually account for your observations.
So, in other words, for almost all practical uses, the special relativity components of the calculations are utterly useless window dressing--unneeded complexity in violation of Occam's Razor.
We're talking science, not practicality. As a scientific matter, Newtonian mechanics do not give an accurate result. Einsteinian relativity does.
Much in the same way that ID never gets a fair chance at scientific investigation because of the assumption that because you don't currently have any evidence, you don't need to look for it.
That is not the assumption made by ID theory.
You're forgetting the other component of Occam's razor. It's not the simplest explanation that's best, but the simplest one that can actually account for your observations.
The theory of the 4 humors accounted for observations, just like astrology does. People are constantly, and with sober seriousness, observing successful experimental predictions in both cases. Who are you to say these aren't scientific observations as best as could be obtained at the time? It hasn't been that long since science marched along happily proving over and over that the ether existed, and the continents were fixed. Your assumptions are pretty cocksure, given science's track record regarding such things as ether, phrenology, and clitorectomic cures for hysteria, not to mention astronomy's current incapacity to accurately describe the large-scale behavior of galactic orbits with einsteinian mechanics.
So, in other words, for almost all practical uses, the special relativity components of the calculations are utterly useless window dressing--unneeded complexity in violation of Occam's Razor.
We're talking science, not practicality. As a scientific matter, Newtonian mechanics do not give an accurate result. Einsteinian relativity does.
As noted above, you are mistaken regarding Einsteinian mechanics, it gives widespead, and important astronomical predictions at wide variance from observation. Our confidence in it derives from sources other than its demonstrated infallible accuracy up until now. At any rate, are you under the impression that calculations in physical dynamics or physical chemistry are normally done using einsteinian mechanics? There's nothing scientifically acute about insisting on calculating terms whose precision is beyond your capacity to measure. Choosing calculations that make claims of precision you don't actually have isn't spectacularly scientifically respectable.
Much in the same way that ID never gets a fair chance at scientific investigation because of the assumption that because you don't currently have any evidence, you don't need to look for it.
That is not the assumption made by ID theory.
Well of course not--that's not a relevant response. It is the assumption made by establishment science in refusing to consider ID. Why don't you explain why SETI is science, and can be mentioned in the classroom, but ID cannot. Both postulate, and search for, an entity external to any naturalistic evidence science currently possesses.
Just as you can claim that Occum's razor makes a case against ID that rises to the level of classroom acceptance, so I can similarly claim regarding SETI. In fact, the SETI claim is stronger, because we've actually been looking pretty hard, and not succeeding for quite a long time now--rather than just thumbing our noses at it, as we've done with ID.
Letting ID into the classroom is the grand mistake--doing so because you think to refute it is an even grander mistake, because you can't, particularly not with as feeble a weapon as Occam's Razor. If you can undersand why SETI is a scientific endeavor, but ID ain't, maybe you can understand why we don't want a cock in this fight, even if we thought it could win.
Do you have any references for this? If what you're saying is true, then these theories do have a scientific basis. But that of course is a mighty big "if".
It hasn't been that long since science marched along happily proving over and over that the ether existed, and the continents were fixed.
Then new data came along to undercut these theories. What relevance does that have to anything we're talking about?
As noted above, you are mistaken regarding Einsteinian mechanics, it gives widespead, and important astronomical predictions at wide variance from observation.
That makes it inferior to Newtonian theory? Bet me.
At any rate, are you under the impression that calculations in physical dynamics or physical chemistry are normally done using einsteinian mechanics?
No. Again, you're talking practicality. That's not what I'm arguing. All you're saying is that the improved accuracy from relativity theory does not, in these cases, warrant the extra labor necessary for calculations using it. It has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is sound.
If you can undersand why SETI is a scientific endeavor, but ID ain't
You're comparing apples and oranges. Unlike ID, SETI isn't a theory; it's a means of testing a theory. Or, it's an acknowledgement that we don't have enough data just yet to formulate a theory on that subject.
I used to program on an UNIVAC 1108.
Do you have any references for this?
Look in the astrology column of your newspaper--people are constantly writing in to report the success of their astrological predictions, and in far vaster numbers than astronomers are reporting successes in predicting large-scale orbits using einsteinian mechanics.
If what you're saying is true, then these theories do have a scientific basis. But that of course is a mighty big "if".
You mean, like the ether theory, or the fixed continent theory had?
It hasn't been that long since science marched along happily proving over and over that the ether existed, and the continents were fixed.
Then new data came along to undercut these theories. What relevance does that have to anything we're talking about?
Just like new data will no doubt come along and prove the ID theory accurate, and the macro-evolutionary theory innacurate, eh? Might as well start looking for the evidence now, just as we do with SETI.
As noted above, you are mistaken regarding Einsteinian mechanics, it gives widespead, and important astronomical predictions at wide variance from observation.
That makes it inferior to Newtonian theory? Bet me.
No, but it makes them both inferior to ID theory, regarding demonstrated puzzling failures of predictive accuracy about major astronomical events that, nonetheless, do not prevent them from being sciences taught in the classroom.
At any rate, are you under the impression that calculations in physical dynamics or physical chemistry are normally done using einsteinian mechanics?
No. Again, you're talking practicality.
I'm not, I'm talking about just about every natural science other than astronomical physics.
That's not what I'm arguing. All you're saying is that the improved accuracy from relativity theory does not, in these cases, warrant the extra labor necessary for calculations using it. It has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is sound.
That wasn't the statement I was arguing about: I was arguing about your claim that Einsteinian mechanics was "infinitely superior" to Newtonian mechanics. Which is, by the way, not picking nits--it is relevant to the question of how strong a theory's claims have to be to make it into a high school textbook.
If you can undersand why SETI is a scientific endeavor, but ID ain't
You're comparing apples and oranges. Unlike ID, SETI isn't a theory; it's a means of testing a theory.
Well, of course it's a theory, and I can state it: "There exist living entities on other planets". You're trying to erect an artificial distinction of little meaningful value.
Or, it's an acknowledgement that we don't have enough data just yet to formulate a theory on that subject.
Nonsense, you are looking for signs of intelligence on other planets, and somehow you want to convince me that that's more scientific than looking for signs of intelligent life left as fossil footprints in our DNA. There's no strong basis for such a distinction: theories just have degrees of credibility--there's no switch someone throws that makes some blessed and some not.
Or, it's an acknowledgement that we don't have enough data just yet to formulate a theory on that subject.
Which is different from ID how? ID is quite carefully (craftily, I would have said) not claiming to know what might have caused macro-evolution: just that it would like to consider it legitimate to look for signs--just like SETI wants to look for signs, without claiming to have pre-conceived notions as to what those signs might look like, or portend.
I can trump that: I used to program early IBM 1400s and 700 series, and I've chased down bugs by sniffing the connections between burned out vacuum tubes.
Only when I drove my Chevy to the levee and the levee wasn't there.
The Bendix G-15 (tube, drum memory) was the replacement for the mechanical calculator for me.
Now compare that to the success you'd get from haphazard guessing. You'll find them well within statistical parameters.
Just like new data will no doubt come along and prove the ID theory accurate, and the macro-evolutionary theory innacurate, eh?
You're asking me if that's what I'm saying? It's not.
I was arguing about your claim that Einsteinian mechanics was "infinitely superior" to Newtonian mechanics.
Which it is, from a purely scientific perspective. Einsteinian theory can predict everything Newtonian theory can, plus a whole lot more. The fact that there are situations where the extra work involved in applying Einstein's theory doesn't justify the small increase in accuracy that you'd get, has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
[Unlike ID, SETI isn't a theory; it's a means of testing a theory.]
Well, of course it's a theory, and I can state it: "There exist living entities on other planets".
And then there's the counter-theory, which is that we're alone. SETI is just a tool for helping to decide between the two.
ID is quite carefully (craftily, I would have said) not claiming to know what might have caused macro-evolution: just that it would like to consider it legitimate to look for signs--just like SETI wants to look for signs, without claiming to have pre-conceived notions as to what those signs might look like, or portend.
The "signs" that ID points to are the features of living organisms that, at present, have been unexplained by evolutionary theory.
Now compare that to the success you'd get from haphazard guessing. You'll find them well within statistical parameters.
So you say. And so you might be able to show--in a sterile laboratory, observed by cynical scientists with no personal interest in the outcome of tests. What has this to do with the real world?, where the observer and the test are interacting, and nearly every afficionado of astrology reports substantial success?
Just like new data will no doubt come along and prove the ID theory accurate, and the macro-evolutionary theory innacurate, eh?
You're asking me if that's what I'm saying? It's not.
Really, but it's ok for science to investigate SETI sans any trace of encouraging positive forensic evidence?
...
I was arguing about your claim that Einsteinian mechanics was "infinitely superior" to Newtonian mechanics.
Which it is, from a purely scientific perspective. Einsteinian theory can predict everything Newtonian theory can, plus a whole lot more. The fact that there are situations where the extra work involved in applying Einstein's theory doesn't justify the small increase in accuracy that you'd get, has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
If there are situations where Newtonian mechanics is the better tool, than Einsteinian mechanics are plainly not "infinitely superior". If it was "infinitely superior, we'd never employ Newtonian mechanics.
[Unlike ID, SETI isn't a theory; it's a means of testing a theory.]
Well, of course it's a theory, and I can state it: "There exist living entities on other planets".
And then there's the counter-theory, which is that we're alone. SETI is just a tool for helping to decide between the two.
And ID has a countertheory--naturalistic macro-evolution, and ID research would have much the same attributes as SETI research.
ID is quite carefully (craftily, I would have said) not claiming to know what might have caused macro-evolution: just that it would like to consider it legitimate to look for signs--just like SETI wants to look for signs, without claiming to have pre-conceived notions as to what those signs might look like, or portend.
The "signs" that ID points to are the features of living organisms that, at present, have been unexplained by evolutionary theory.
So let me see if I have this straight--SETI gets a place at the scientific table because there's absolutely no encouraging positive forensic evidence it can point to, but ID loses it's place at the scientific table because it can point to vacancies in the forensic evidence for evolutionary theory.
Remind me not to vote you into a schoolboard position in my district. Your approach will not fend off ID for a microsecond.
This sort of thing has already been investigated, and when astrological predictions are of such a nature as to actually mean something definite (which is pretty seldom to begin with), the results have been no better than haphazard guessing. Unless you're seriously trying to argue that astrology is valid, you're not making any point with this.
If there are situations where Newtonian mechanics is the better tool, than Einsteinian mechanics are plainly not "infinitely superior".
Infinitely superior as a way of explaining reality. That's what the context of this discussion is about.
So let me see if I have this straight--SETI gets a place at the scientific table because there's absolutely no encouraging positive forensic evidence it can point to, but ID loses it's place at the scientific table because it can point to vacancies in the forensic evidence for evolutionary theory.
You're still making the wrong comparison between ID and SETI. So far, I don't think any scientist has proposed an actual theory that there are living beings on other planets. What they're doing is gathering data that will either show directly that there is, or will help to formulate a theory about whether or not there is. SETI itself is not a theory. You can not compare it at all to ID or macroevolutionary theory. The more you insist on making the comparison, the more muddled the discussion is going to be.
Actually SETI knows exactly what it is searching for and what it would portend. They are looking for a narrow band carrier signal, which would indicate an artifical radio signal, or a previously unobserved phenomenon.
If ID chooses to look for something very specific, it would be science, although not necessarily important.
And would it then be "scientific" to attempt to devise a theory that would answer whether it's one or the other?
It would be scientific to try to develop another, independent line of evidence. It would not be particularly scientific to attempt to derive a history from the phenomenenon itself.
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.