Unabated lunacy continues
-
fat_boy wrote:
Actually this isnt true. The theory of AGW has not been proved,
Shockingly "scientific consensus strongly supports" and "theory has been proven" are two vastly different things. For the umpteenth time: theories. are. not. proven. by. definition. science. does. not. prove things. I don't know how much clearer to make that so either you're ignoring it on purpose, or you're actually an idiot.
fat_boy wrote:
Science has never worked this way.
Well, you would know, with your education and experience in a scientific discipline, right? Oh... wait... sorry.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
by. definition. science. does. not. prove things
Bullshit. The very essence of science is that it proves things.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, you would know, with your education and experience in a scientific discipline, right? Oh... wait... sorry.
Oh wow, so cute, so childish. Really, grow up if you are going to ever debate this subject properly.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
It hasn't been proven. Chiropractors love that line because then they can talk about how subluxations cause disease. Hey, maybe you picked up the "it hasn't been proven" thing from your parents? Are they Palmer fans? For your perusal: Have you ever once read this in the ten or so times that i've linked it?[^] The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993). The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue. Consider the example of the white swans discussed earlier. One could search the world and see only white swans, and arrive at the generalization that "all swans are white. " However, the discovery of one black swan has the potential to overturn, or at least result in modifications of, this proposed law of nature. However, whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist's mind to change are issues worth exploring.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It hasn't been proven. Chiropractors love that line because then they can talk about how subluxations cause disease. Hey, maybe you picked up the "it hasn't been proven" thing from your parents? Are they Palmer fans?
So again with the personal attacks, and now on my family. What a sad individual you are. -sigh- and for the record chiropractic does work in some situations. If you ever have a bad back, as I have had, you might know that. If not you do not have the basis on which to make an accusation such as that.
Fisticuffs wrote:
but will never prove those laws and theories to be true
I think flying to the moon on Newtonian physics is pretty fucking good proof sunshine. As for the swans, what a stupid argument. If this kind of peurile drivel is the best you can do to support your view of science then you are hoplessly sunk.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It hasn't been proven. Chiropractors love that line because then they can talk about how subluxations cause disease. Hey, maybe you picked up the "it hasn't been proven" thing from your parents? Are they Palmer fans?
So again with the personal attacks, and now on my family. What a sad individual you are. -sigh- and for the record chiropractic does work in some situations. If you ever have a bad back, as I have had, you might know that. If not you do not have the basis on which to make an accusation such as that.
Fisticuffs wrote:
but will never prove those laws and theories to be true
I think flying to the moon on Newtonian physics is pretty fucking good proof sunshine. As for the swans, what a stupid argument. If this kind of peurile drivel is the best you can do to support your view of science then you are hoplessly sunk.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I think flying to the moon on Newtonian physics is pretty f***ing good proof sunshine.
No, it's not proof that the laws are accurate. It's good evidence. Do you understand the difference? The difference is that for proof there is never an alternative explanation, no matter how unlikely, because it's absolutely true. If there are any alternative explanations at all, it's not proven. They made it to the moon because invisible space aliens used their rays to help correct us. Whoops! That's an unlikely alternative explanation! I guess the laws aren't PROVEN after all. *cough* by the way laws and theories are different things laws are observations and theories are explanations but good job screwing that up too.
fat_boy wrote:
If you ever have a bad back, as I have had, you might know that. If not you do not have the basis on which to make an accusation such as that.
Well hell, I guess if you used it, and got better, then it *must* be that spinal manipulation works and it totally wasn't coincidence or anything else you did or spontaneous regression because most back pain fixes itself after 6 weeks or only seeking help when the pain is the worst. Nooooo, it *must* be the chiropractic. In summary, here are your grades for this assignment: Understanding of scientific terminology: F (laws are not theories, laws and theories are never proven) Understanding of scientific thinking: F (correlation is not causation, your personal experience does not demonstrate the efficacy of an intervention) So sorry. Perhaps you can try again some other time?
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
by. definition. science. does. not. prove things
Bullshit. The very essence of science is that it proves things.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, you would know, with your education and experience in a scientific discipline, right? Oh... wait... sorry.
Oh wow, so cute, so childish. Really, grow up if you are going to ever debate this subject properly.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Oh wow, so cute, so childish.
Yes, it's true - I do have a point in that you've been told over and over again by me and other people who have scientific education that science doesn't prove things but you refuse to believe them. So I wonder - what makes you think you're right and all these people who actually do science (and would ostensibly prove things if that's what science did) are wrong about this? Would your world really come crashing down if you realized that science doesn't provide absolute truth?
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
I think flying to the moon on Newtonian physics is pretty f***ing good proof sunshine.
No, it's not proof that the laws are accurate. It's good evidence. Do you understand the difference? The difference is that for proof there is never an alternative explanation, no matter how unlikely, because it's absolutely true. If there are any alternative explanations at all, it's not proven. They made it to the moon because invisible space aliens used their rays to help correct us. Whoops! That's an unlikely alternative explanation! I guess the laws aren't PROVEN after all. *cough* by the way laws and theories are different things laws are observations and theories are explanations but good job screwing that up too.
fat_boy wrote:
If you ever have a bad back, as I have had, you might know that. If not you do not have the basis on which to make an accusation such as that.
Well hell, I guess if you used it, and got better, then it *must* be that spinal manipulation works and it totally wasn't coincidence or anything else you did or spontaneous regression because most back pain fixes itself after 6 weeks or only seeking help when the pain is the worst. Nooooo, it *must* be the chiropractic. In summary, here are your grades for this assignment: Understanding of scientific terminology: F (laws are not theories, laws and theories are never proven) Understanding of scientific thinking: F (correlation is not causation, your personal experience does not demonstrate the efficacy of an intervention) So sorry. Perhaps you can try again some other time?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
No, it's not proof that the laws are accurate. It's good evidence. Do you understand the difference?
This is beoming pointless. All I will say is that proof is based on observable repeatable results from experimentation. That is the corner stone of science. Without that it is all just opinion.
Fisticuffs wrote:
If there are any alternative explanations at all, it's not proven
Utter bollocks. Any other/new explanation would need to be proven by experiementation to disprove, or enhance upon, the originaly proved explanation. Your space alien example is perfect proof that you are talking bollocks.
Fisticuffs wrote:
most back pain fixes itself after 6 weeks or only seeking help when the pain is the worst. Nooooo, it *must* be the chiropractic.
More like 6 years asshole. You really are a deluded fool. You think that science is based upon unproven postulation, becuase nothing can be proved. This is utter infantile twaddle. Thank god alomost no-one else thinks like you. We would still be in the dark ages otherwise.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Oh wow, so cute, so childish.
Yes, it's true - I do have a point in that you've been told over and over again by me and other people who have scientific education that science doesn't prove things but you refuse to believe them. So I wonder - what makes you think you're right and all these people who actually do science (and would ostensibly prove things if that's what science did) are wrong about this? Would your world really come crashing down if you realized that science doesn't provide absolute truth?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Yes, it's true - I do have a point in that you've been told over and over again by me and other people who have scientific education that science doesn't prove things but you refuse to believe them. So I wonder - what makes you think you're right and all these people who actually do science
You and who? Go on, go get them.
Fisticuffs wrote:
absolute truth
Aho, so now its 'absoloute truth'. So, tell me, how do you define this then? Leave philosophy out of this, its irrelevant and pointless.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Yes, it's true - I do have a point in that you've been told over and over again by me and other people who have scientific education that science doesn't prove things but you refuse to believe them. So I wonder - what makes you think you're right and all these people who actually do science
You and who? Go on, go get them.
Fisticuffs wrote:
absolute truth
Aho, so now its 'absoloute truth'. So, tell me, how do you define this then? Leave philosophy out of this, its irrelevant and pointless.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Aho, so now its 'absoloute truth'.
You have another definition for "proof" that means something other than "demonstrated to be absolutely true?" Then you're operating on a different set of definitions than the scientific world. Good luck with that.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
No, it's not proof that the laws are accurate. It's good evidence. Do you understand the difference?
This is beoming pointless. All I will say is that proof is based on observable repeatable results from experimentation. That is the corner stone of science. Without that it is all just opinion.
Fisticuffs wrote:
If there are any alternative explanations at all, it's not proven
Utter bollocks. Any other/new explanation would need to be proven by experiementation to disprove, or enhance upon, the originaly proved explanation. Your space alien example is perfect proof that you are talking bollocks.
Fisticuffs wrote:
most back pain fixes itself after 6 weeks or only seeking help when the pain is the worst. Nooooo, it *must* be the chiropractic.
More like 6 years asshole. You really are a deluded fool. You think that science is based upon unproven postulation, becuase nothing can be proved. This is utter infantile twaddle. Thank god alomost no-one else thinks like you. We would still be in the dark ages otherwise.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
More like 6 years a**hole.
Oh, well, gee, six years, then it *must* be the chiropractic. You sure showed me. That's some real scientific thinking there. You still get an F.
fat_boy wrote:
Thank god alomost no-one else thinks like you.
Everyone who is honest about the limitations of scientific endeavors thinks like me. The foundation of science is that nothing is dogmatic and it is always necessary to adapt one's explanations based on new evidence. To deny this is to deny science or to be completely ignorant of the reality of it. Which you demonstrate quite nicely.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
Aho, so now its 'absoloute truth'.
You have another definition for "proof" that means something other than "demonstrated to be absolutely true?" Then you're operating on a different set of definitions than the scientific world. Good luck with that.
- F
Youre the one who used the term "absoloute truth", having just used the word "truth" previously. Assuming there is a difference between them according to you, and there would have to be otherwise you would just be throwing text on page without any mental intent, which I havent entirely discluded, then it is you who should define the two terms (according to you of course).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
More like 6 years a**hole.
Oh, well, gee, six years, then it *must* be the chiropractic. You sure showed me. That's some real scientific thinking there. You still get an F.
fat_boy wrote:
Thank god alomost no-one else thinks like you.
Everyone who is honest about the limitations of scientific endeavors thinks like me. The foundation of science is that nothing is dogmatic and it is always necessary to adapt one's explanations based on new evidence. To deny this is to deny science or to be completely ignorant of the reality of it. Which you demonstrate quite nicely.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Oh, well, gee, six years, then it *must* be the chiropractic.
You are such a dick head. I had a rugby accident as a teenager, I partly crushed a vertebrae in my back. I later fell 15 feet out of a tree onto my arse. Later my back fucked up. It got so I couldnt walk sometimes. I couldnt bend at the waist at all in a standing position. After many years of pain my brother in law manipulated the left side SI joint over a number of days during christmass one year. Two years later I totally redid the downstairs of my house, put in a stone arch in a supporting wal (each stone weighing 100 kg when it came form the quary up the road), putting in windows and doors etc. All of which involves a lot of lifting, shoveling, bending, and so on.
Fisticuffs wrote:
it is always necessary to adapt one's explanations based on new evidence
No shit. And wheres the evidence, and I dont mean manipulated data, for GW? Wheres the evidence that CO2 in any way has a noticable effect on temperature? There isnt any is there. You know it full well as do the scientists, and while this is the case AGW remains a theory, a possibility. And not 'proved' or 'evidenced' (to use YOUR term) in the real world.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Youre the one who used the term "absoloute truth", having just used the word "truth" previously. Assuming there is a difference between them according to you, and there would have to be otherwise you would just be throwing text on page without any mental intent, which I havent entirely discluded, then it is you who should define the two terms (according to you of course).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Proof is a term describing a structure of logical steps that leads from the fundamental rules of a system to a conclusion about those rules. It is usually used to describe a mathematical construct since mathematics is a system with well-defined rules. Proof can be done through induction or extrapolation. Proof can not be constructed through the scientific method because the scientific method can never completely elucidate the fundamental rules of a system since it operates only by observation of the system (i.e. natural processes). The scientific method can only disprove by demonstrating contrary evidence. This is why you cannot prove things in science.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Oh, well, gee, six years, then it *must* be the chiropractic.
You are such a dick head. I had a rugby accident as a teenager, I partly crushed a vertebrae in my back. I later fell 15 feet out of a tree onto my arse. Later my back fucked up. It got so I couldnt walk sometimes. I couldnt bend at the waist at all in a standing position. After many years of pain my brother in law manipulated the left side SI joint over a number of days during christmass one year. Two years later I totally redid the downstairs of my house, put in a stone arch in a supporting wal (each stone weighing 100 kg when it came form the quary up the road), putting in windows and doors etc. All of which involves a lot of lifting, shoveling, bending, and so on.
Fisticuffs wrote:
it is always necessary to adapt one's explanations based on new evidence
No shit. And wheres the evidence, and I dont mean manipulated data, for GW? Wheres the evidence that CO2 in any way has a noticable effect on temperature? There isnt any is there. You know it full well as do the scientists, and while this is the case AGW remains a theory, a possibility. And not 'proved' or 'evidenced' (to use YOUR term) in the real world.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
After many years of pain my brother in law manipulated the left side SI joint over a number of days during christmass one year. Two years later I totally redid the downstairs of my house, put in a stone arch in a supporting wal (each stone weighing 100 kg when it came form the quary up the road), putting in windows and doors etc. All of which involves a lot of lifting, shoveling, bending, and so on.
From a scientific perspective this is exactly as convincing evidence as performed back surgery or gave me massage or even applied a homeopathic tincture of Vellsares 30C. If you are interested in thinking about this problem scientifically, you look at the peer-reviewed literature for evidence of efficacy as demonstrated by randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, etc. However, it will never, ever, be proven that one of these interventions works - based on the statistics calculated from the evidence, you can only be a certain percentage sure but never 100%. If you even give an antibiotic for a bacterial infection that has been given for fifty years with good results, that still does not prove that antibiotics work; it does not prove that antibiotic works for that bacteria; it doesn't even prove that the antibiotic worked for the person taking it in that one case - maybe the infection cleared on its own and the antibiotic did nothing. You can only have a varying degree of certainty based on the existing evidence available. Plainly, there are many other explanations for why your back symptoms improved. Exercise improves back symptoms - i find it kind of hard to believe that you were in bed resting for 2 years before remodelling your house. You choose to attribute it to the chiropractic for no good reason other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. This is why I tell you: Science. You are doing it wrong.
- F
-
Proof is a term describing a structure of logical steps that leads from the fundamental rules of a system to a conclusion about those rules. It is usually used to describe a mathematical construct since mathematics is a system with well-defined rules. Proof can be done through induction or extrapolation. Proof can not be constructed through the scientific method because the scientific method can never completely elucidate the fundamental rules of a system since it operates only by observation of the system (i.e. natural processes). The scientific method can only disprove by demonstrating contrary evidence. This is why you cannot prove things in science.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Proof is
Fisticuffs wrote:
This is why you cannot prove things in science.
Proof actually means test. For example, a gun would be 'proved' by being loaded with a massive charge and fired. If the barrel didnt splinter it was proved. Alcohol is also proved, hence the term, 80` proof. Epreuve is the original French word, mening test, from which we get our word. So, given the real meaning of 'proof' can you now see how it means to test a theory through experimentation? It really is very simple and doesnt requitre the kind of mental gymnastics you apply to the issue.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
After many years of pain my brother in law manipulated the left side SI joint over a number of days during christmass one year. Two years later I totally redid the downstairs of my house, put in a stone arch in a supporting wal (each stone weighing 100 kg when it came form the quary up the road), putting in windows and doors etc. All of which involves a lot of lifting, shoveling, bending, and so on.
From a scientific perspective this is exactly as convincing evidence as performed back surgery or gave me massage or even applied a homeopathic tincture of Vellsares 30C. If you are interested in thinking about this problem scientifically, you look at the peer-reviewed literature for evidence of efficacy as demonstrated by randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, etc. However, it will never, ever, be proven that one of these interventions works - based on the statistics calculated from the evidence, you can only be a certain percentage sure but never 100%. If you even give an antibiotic for a bacterial infection that has been given for fifty years with good results, that still does not prove that antibiotics work; it does not prove that antibiotic works for that bacteria; it doesn't even prove that the antibiotic worked for the person taking it in that one case - maybe the infection cleared on its own and the antibiotic did nothing. You can only have a varying degree of certainty based on the existing evidence available. Plainly, there are many other explanations for why your back symptoms improved. Exercise improves back symptoms - i find it kind of hard to believe that you were in bed resting for 2 years before remodelling your house. You choose to attribute it to the chiropractic for no good reason other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. This is why I tell you: Science. You are doing it wrong.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
i find it kind of hard to believe that you were in bed resting for 2 years before remodelling your house
I wasnt. And I didnt say that either. I was in pain for many years, incapable of doing many things untill I had treatment that allowed me to actually do hard physical work. Something I felt I would never be able to do again. You know, theres an old saying. If it looks like shit, and smells like shit, it is shit. You can argue how many angels sit on the head of a pin all you like, but eventually youve got to face reality. I think you ought to reflect at this point how you think you are right, and how so many other people thnk otherwise about this subject. Then apply that to everyting else you know. So with GW. The facts are its not that warm today and its not getting warmer. The troposphere did not warm as much as the surface did during its recent 25 year or so warming period. And only one pole has shown recent warming (and is still not as warm as it has been in the last century). Now you can twist these facts around, even lie about them, but all these run counter to the theory of AGW. AGW theory has been tested by the real world, and in so doing has failed those tests. As a theory it is then an interesting possibility, and not a reality. That is the truth.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
i find it kind of hard to believe that you were in bed resting for 2 years before remodelling your house
I wasnt. And I didnt say that either. I was in pain for many years, incapable of doing many things untill I had treatment that allowed me to actually do hard physical work. Something I felt I would never be able to do again. You know, theres an old saying. If it looks like shit, and smells like shit, it is shit. You can argue how many angels sit on the head of a pin all you like, but eventually youve got to face reality. I think you ought to reflect at this point how you think you are right, and how so many other people thnk otherwise about this subject. Then apply that to everyting else you know. So with GW. The facts are its not that warm today and its not getting warmer. The troposphere did not warm as much as the surface did during its recent 25 year or so warming period. And only one pole has shown recent warming (and is still not as warm as it has been in the last century). Now you can twist these facts around, even lie about them, but all these run counter to the theory of AGW. AGW theory has been tested by the real world, and in so doing has failed those tests. As a theory it is then an interesting possibility, and not a reality. That is the truth.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You know, theres an old saying. If it looks like sh*t, and smells like sh*t, it is sh*t. You can argue how many angels sit on the head of a pin all you like, but eventually youve got to face reality.
And science takes a different view: that while individual experiences are good for hypothesis generation, time and time again individual people are not good at differentiating correlation from causation. You value your personal experience over a rigorous scientific approach and that's fine but the plural of anecdote is not data so don't expect people like me who hold things to a far higher standard of evidence to be impressed with "well i did it and i got better so it must work."
fat_boy wrote:
I think you ought to reflect at this point how you think you are right, and how so many other people thnk otherwise about this subject.
Shockingly, opinion doesn't dictate science. The evidence and the literature do.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Proof is
Fisticuffs wrote:
This is why you cannot prove things in science.
Proof actually means test. For example, a gun would be 'proved' by being loaded with a massive charge and fired. If the barrel didnt splinter it was proved. Alcohol is also proved, hence the term, 80` proof. Epreuve is the original French word, mening test, from which we get our word. So, given the real meaning of 'proof' can you now see how it means to test a theory through experimentation? It really is very simple and doesnt requitre the kind of mental gymnastics you apply to the issue.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Proof actually means test
That's fine that you've decided to use such a loose definition of proof, but by claiming that "AGW isn't proven" you're essentially holding it to another method of scientific evidence that is inaccessible to many other well-understood and demonstrated scientific tenets. By your definition, the theory of evolution has not been "proven" to satisfaction but you don't have any problem with that - so it leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the science or the evidence, it's with you. Rigor is important. You can get all loosey-goosey with "guh science" because you can afford to. The rest of us don't have that luxury and appropriately recognize the limitations of science. You can't always test with experiment; experiment is not always necessary to draw reasonable conclusions about natural processes.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
You know, theres an old saying. If it looks like sh*t, and smells like sh*t, it is sh*t. You can argue how many angels sit on the head of a pin all you like, but eventually youve got to face reality.
And science takes a different view: that while individual experiences are good for hypothesis generation, time and time again individual people are not good at differentiating correlation from causation. You value your personal experience over a rigorous scientific approach and that's fine but the plural of anecdote is not data so don't expect people like me who hold things to a far higher standard of evidence to be impressed with "well i did it and i got better so it must work."
fat_boy wrote:
I think you ought to reflect at this point how you think you are right, and how so many other people thnk otherwise about this subject.
Shockingly, opinion doesn't dictate science. The evidence and the literature do.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
And science takes a different view: that while individual experiences are good for hypothesis generation
In fact scientific rigour acts against individual experiences by encapsulating repeatability. And that is why data and procedure must also be public, so that anyone can come to the same conclusion. And in fact a big problem with AGW is the unavailability of data and method for scrutiny. In afct the times they have been forced to provide acces to these there have been serious problems found. Hanse and Mann notably.
Fisticuffs wrote:
You value your personal experience over a rigorous scientific approach
As stated no, I disagree with this entirely, and it is a criticism I would level at the likes of Mann and Hansen.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Shockingly, opinion doesn't dictate science
And yet we are told that concensus proves AGW. Is that not opinion.
Fisticuffs wrote:
The evidence and the literature do
And the evidence is that temparatures are not abnormal and are not tied to CO2. While CO2 might have an effect it is too small to be detected against natural variability. Its an interesting post this, of yours. You have pretty much stated MY position on science, and hence the problems I see with AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Proof actually means test
That's fine that you've decided to use such a loose definition of proof, but by claiming that "AGW isn't proven" you're essentially holding it to another method of scientific evidence that is inaccessible to many other well-understood and demonstrated scientific tenets. By your definition, the theory of evolution has not been "proven" to satisfaction but you don't have any problem with that - so it leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the science or the evidence, it's with you. Rigor is important. You can get all loosey-goosey with "guh science" because you can afford to. The rest of us don't have that luxury and appropriately recognize the limitations of science. You can't always test with experiment; experiment is not always necessary to draw reasonable conclusions about natural processes.
- F
Well, its not loose, its actually the original deffinition.
Fisticuffs wrote:
the theory of evolution has not been "proven" to satisfaction
Well, if you study the white moth of northern england that became darker due to soot deposits on trees I believe you have a very good example of specialisation and natural selection. Its an interesting study. Of course I am also aware that there are problems with applying such a classic minutae example as this ti the whole of life. One of the classic is, why does 'evoloution' seem to rest at fixed points. The horseshoe crab for example. Why hasnt it evolved in millions of years. Can it seriously be so well adapted to its environment that it has no need to adapt? The same can be said for many animals. Where is the fossil, or existing evidence, for evoloutioinary steps? Why do we only see the whole numbers and not the fracitons in between? So yes, there are problems with its 'experimental' proof, and yet as a theory it is so elegant, so well suited to life that, and in this case I agree with you, a self evident truth can also constitute proof.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription