Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
John ch 6........
http://www.awitness.org/biblehtm/joh/joh6.htm
Oh thank you for the info, dearest sister in Christ. I do recall something along those lines. But a Goggle search turned up nothing....
Well jeepers you're entitled to your opinion LeGrande. What can I say? Everyone has opinions.
Please define "independent thought." Then explain why I don't have it.
[[I’m fairly certain this is the same guy whose theory we’ve previously reviewed and (as I recall) was dubbed “the kid” at DarwinCentral.]]
If I’m not mistaken, I think Samson Dakota was dubbed that at Darwin central too
The concept of falsification described in the paper, which is actually a speech given by the originator of the concept, the philosopher (not a scientist) Karl Popper, is actually not about what science itself is, but about what constitutes a truly scientific "theory." As Karl Popper explains, it is not about the validity of science, but what distinguishes real science from pseudoscience. (The concept was originally developed around 1920. There was a lot of science done before that date which certainly did not depend on any concepts developed by Popper.)
Please read the article to understand exactly what Karl Popper means, because it is not what you are saying at all.
The concept is not really difficult but it is amazing so few people really understand it. It should not be called "falsification," but "falsifiability," and it essentially means any theory or hypothesis for which some test cannot be devised which would prove the theory or hypothesis to be false, if it is false, cannot be truly scientific.
The purpose of the concept is to prevent just any wild conjecture to be allowed acceptance as "science." It has nothing to do with the process of science itself, but about what may or may not be legitimately called science. It definitely does NOT say that science is falsification or attempts to falsify anything.
In fact, it says the opposite. If a theory is a truly scientific one, there will be some test or experiment or observation that will prove it false, if it is false. For example (from Popper), if Einstein's prediction that light will be "bent" by massive gravitational force is true, observing the light from stars that pass near the sun will make them appear to be in a different position from their true position. When that observation was finally made possible, if the stars did not appear to be in the wrong position, that would have "falsified" Einstein's theory. In fact, the theory, at least for that prediction was proved correct. So falsifiability is actually a way to prove something is true, not false.
Here is how to think about it. If there is a test that will definitely prove something is false, if it is false, and that test performed and fails to prove it false, then it must be true. There may be few tests in science that are that definite, but the point that science does not try to "disprove" or "falsify" anything should be clear.
I do not think you intend to deceive anyone about this, and am sure you really believe what you are saying, but please do not continue to misrepresent the concept of falsifiability.
Hank
Indeed, as you say the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" is like God's copyright notice on the Universe!
I can't wait to hear what you think of it....
Here again, I shall present my understanding of the matter which is rooted in Judeo/Christian theology and relates well to Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Scripture and Jewish tradition speak of the soul/spirit in four levels:
2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)
3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"
4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)
The first, the nephesh is the “will to live” which permeates the entire biosphere and perhaps the entire universe. It can be observed in plants and animals, in creatures which go into dormant phases of their life cycle and in the simplest of life forms (e.g. cell intelligence)
It is also observed in collectives of organisms which act as if one mind – swarm intelligence (ants, bees, etc.). The “will to live” also permeates throughout the molecular machinery of higher organisms. For instance, if a part of the heart dies (myocardial infarction) – the molecular machinery will continue to struggle to survive, routing blood flow around the dead tissue. A person can be “brain dead” and yet the rest of the body will struggle to survive and will succeed if a machine (respirator) is used to simulate the cyclic instruction of the brain. Plant life will overtake most structures and acreage if not continually maintained.
The second, the ruach is what we also might call consciousness or mind and is the subject of ongoing inter-disciplinary studies.
Those who believe in strong determinism – or even strong predestination – would consider the mind to be an epiphenomen, a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen. These would believe that everything is unfolding involuntarily – on the one hand by physical laws and constants (the physical brain caused you to press the “post” button, the mind is an illusion) – and on the other, according to God’s will from the beginning (free will is an illusion.)
IMHO, one of the strong evidences against either of these is qualia, the properties of sensory experiences that are epistemically unknowable in the absence of direct experience of them and therefore are also incommunicable – things such as likes, dislikes, pain, pleasure, love, hate, good, evil. IOW, if the mind were actually just an epiphenomenon then “pain” would be programmable. But AFAIK, artificial intelligence cannot spontaneously experience an incommunicable, epistemically unknowable, phenomenon.
And again, using successful communication (Shannon, information) as the definition of life, the definition applies at all levels in the hierarchy.
[[Please define “independent thought.” Then explain why I don’t have it.]]
I’ve dealth with Miss Tickly before- ‘independent thought’ is any htought that doesn’t agree with the bible or with the church apaprently- it’s apparently ‘freeing’ to be rid of icky htings liek the universal morality laws of hte bible, and it’s apparnetly not an exclusive church thing for ‘morality’ to exist (of course those hwo reject God are talking of subjective morality when they tout how life without God can include ‘morality’ because people are essentially ‘good’ on their own- but of course we all know how ‘good’ subjective morlaity really is)
Thank you again, dearest sister in Christ!!!
[[I’m fairly certain this is the same guy whose theory we’ve previously reviewed and (as I recall) was dubbed “the kid” at DarwinCentral.]]
Are you speakign of Dakota? If so, do you recall what you concluded abotu his hteories? I think there is a connection between what he theorizes, and with what BB (or was it you?) said abotu light (or was it sound- lol- my mind is shot htis am) beign able transport the message- but I haven’t quite made hte connection yet between the two lines of htought.
“Boiling it all down, where do we humans get the universal idea of Truth from in the first place...”
What do you mean by truth?
Just curious because you seem to use it to mean something other than an attribute pertaining to statements. Where do we humans get the universal idea of heat. Isn’t it simply the attribute of all hot things? Isn’t truth simply the attribute of all true statements?
Hank
Also, as I recall, his paper was thick on theology and thin on science.
My interest was due to this observed correlation between light and sound, which betty boop and I cite in our book Timothy:
“The results were presented as plots of slight temperature variations in the CMB that graph sound waves in the dense early universe. These high-resolution ‘power spectra’ show not only a strong primary resonance but are consistent with two additional harmonics, or peaks.
“The peaks indicate harmonics in the sound waves that filled the early, dense universe. Until some 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was so hot that matter and radiation were entangled in a kind of soup in which sound waves (pressure waves) could vibrate. The CMB is a relic of the moment when the universe had cooled enough so that photons could “decouple” from electrons, protons, and neutrons; then atoms formed and light went on its way.”
Paul Preuss, “The Universe May Be Flat But It Is Nevertheless Musical,” Science Beat, Berkeley Lab (June 5, 2001); read it at http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/cmb-harmonics.html
[[It’s been quite awhile since I last read the paper but as I recall the author - who was young and whose education so far was not in physics (evidently earning him the nickname “the kid”) - speculated that sound (pressure waves) gave rise to light (photons.)]]
Yep- that was him- His work does have soem hteory- but it’s also backed up by experiments by prominent scientists in the lab- creating light using high pressure sound-
[[After reading his paper, it was apparent to me that he had a long way to go before his speculation could be taken as a hypothesis or theory.]]
I dunno- I’ve seen ‘theories’ of other sciwentists that are based on much less than Dakota presents
No, falsification didn't prove Einsteins theory. It simply failed to disprove it.
Let me put it another way. Say that I have a theory that all swans are white. This is a testable (falsifiable) theory. I then survey all the swans in North America and all are white, the prediction was correct. Ditto for Europe and Africa. Have I proven the theory? No Can I prove the theory? No
It so happens that there are black swans in Australia, but that doesn't really matter, all that knowledge can do is falsify the theory. The best I can hope for with the theory is that it doesn't get falsified.
“Let me put it another way. Say that I have a theory that all swans are white. This is a testable (falsifiable) theory.”
Please do not insult me with this academic sophistry. That is exactly what an unscientific (unfalsifiable) hypothesis is. It’s what has become wrong with all science. Real science is cannot be done by surveys, just because it is never possible to know you’ve surveyed everything. It is exactly this kind of nonsens Popper was trying to prevent.
Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?
I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?
Another unprovable theory I have is that people can be made to feel no pain while being operated on.
You stick with your post-modernist academic rejection of all knowledge and I’ll stick with reality.
Hank
A complete understanding of reality.
If that isn't correct, then explain why not? Proof is a very high bar to pass, isn't it.
Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?
Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism? Please do a little research and you will find that your theory is not correct in all cases. Falsified.
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?
As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.
I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?
Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?
If that isn't correct, then explain why not? Proof is a very high bar to pass, isn't it.
Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?
Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism? Please do a little research and you will find that your theory is not correct in all cases. Falsified.
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?
As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.
I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?
Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?
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.