I guess he didn't know everything after all...
Posted on 01/31/2006 5:46:36 PM PST by KevinDavis
Our metaphysics prof promised to award an F on any test paper that used a strawman.
Oh, I dunno. Factor in Madonna and it's pretty much the entire galaxy.
Scientific theories are always refutable---with better science. That element of self-correction is both the nature and the strength of the scientific method.
Mine had a particular dislike for any statement that starts with "It is intuitively obvious that..."
We were still on Chapter Two of our metaphysics text at the end of the semester. But, it seems that was not a bad place to be and was good preparation for metaphysics debates on FR. We got to Theseus' Ship. Not beyond Theseus' Ship. Theseus had moves; he could have done well on 'Dancing with the Stars,' maybe another Emmit.
For example, it took Einstein and his scrutiny of Newtonian assumptions to recall the assumptions underlying the math, such as "time changes at an invariant rate."
"For more than 200 years, Darwinists thought that man evolved....". I guess anyone can make a mistake.
Every transfinite consistent multiplicity, that is, every transfinite set, must have a definite aleph as its cardinal number.
My theory stands as firm as a rock; every arrow directed against it will quickly return to the archer. How do I know this? Because I have studied it from all sides for many years; because I have examined all objections which have ever been made against the infinite numbers; and above all because I have followed its roots, so to speak, to the first infallible cause of all created things.
that there are levels of infinity
I guess he didn't know everything after all...
That is not a strawman argument (its an observation), nor is it an attack on actual scientific method. To the contrary, I'm no Luddite, and would love to have scientific method followed very strictly. I made an observation that scientists like to sound certain, when they don't really have definitive proof. I'll stand by that.
Scientific presumption in astronomy is really fairly harmless, but in other fields it has opened Pandora's box, to make things that aren't definite whatever the majority would like them to be. Which is bad for science, and when it supports a political agenda or to suck up grant money, bad for us all.
It is all well and good to say 'just show scientific proof to the contrary', but when there is none to be had, that's pretty hard. e.g. Global warming computer models are absolute nonsense, but a majority of the scientific world has agreed to go with it. So how do I refute their computer model? They've created evidence, because no real evidence is available. I could create my own flawed model, but I wouldn't be using science, and it would come back to how the majority feels, vice any scientific proof.
To combat this decline of real science, I would like to start forcing scientists to say the words, "We don't really know, but..." when they don't really know. The things that are actually known (distance of the Sun, composition of the atmosphere) should be presented differently than theories on why the dinosaurs went extinct, why Johnny misbehaves, etc.
The reader is assumed to be an intelligent rational agent. THe limitation always implied is "thought to be". If one really understands this, they can know and understand things. If they can not, understand it, they will never be able to grasp, "strength of the evidence".
Not the Drake Equation anymore.
Replaced by the Rare Earth equation. From the book of the same name.
You don't know what science is, because you speak of "proof". There is no proof. There is only evidence and the strength of evidence.
" Global warming computer models are absolute nonsense"
No they are not. The strength of any one of them relies on the accuracy of the model. It's that simple.
"They've created evidence"
No one can create evidence.
Replaced by the Rare Earth equation, from the book of the same name by Ward and Brownlee. One of the ten most important books in my library.
You have all the signs of worshiping a false god. The models are nonsense, not because the elements included are fabricated (although some are), but because vast known variables of unknown magnitude are discounted, not because they aren't important, but simply because they can't be quantified. Additionally, fudge numbers must always be inputted into the models to get them to properly predict the known past. The fudge numbers aren't scientific, they are simply the margin of error.
I know unscientific nonsense when I see it, and I'm not impressed with PhDs that like to play make-believe.
No proof huh? I'll bite, when the available evidence is concrete and not conjecture, and when that evidence can produce the same predictable outcome every single time that its tried, I call that proof. You can call it strong evidence if you wish. In fact, get scientists to do just that, and I'll be happy.
There is a great deal of difference between blindly reaching into a box of unknown size and contents, pulling out two matching pieces and pronouncing "all evidence shows", and inventorying all pieces in a box of known size and pronouncing "all evidence shows".
yeah... sure.
"...when that evidence can produce the same predictable outcome every single time that its tried,I call that proof.
Since when does evidence predict? A proof is a logical construction, which shows that all other possibilities are impossible. Evidence is simply the result of observation, that supports some mathematical description of physical reality. Evidence does not ever exclude other possibilities. As the strength of evidence increases, the probability of other possibilities decreases.
"There is a great deal of difference between blindly reaching into a box of unknown size and contents, pulling out two matching pieces and pronouncing "all evidence shows", and inventorying all pieces in a box of known size and pronouncing "all evidence shows"."
Grasping for straws?
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.
