QI Facts
-
S Houghtelin wrote:
You don't believe what I believe, therefore you are stupid.
If someone claimed that 1 + 1 = 3, would you respect their right to believe something that you don't, or would you laugh at them for being stupid? If someone tried to pass a law asserting that π is exactly 3.2, would you accept their belief, or laugh them out of court[^]? Unfortunately, most people who refuse to "believe" in evolution do so not because they have a better theory, but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. And that's fine, until they start trying to claim that their religious beliefs have as much scientific credibility as evolution, and should be given equal billing in science lessons.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I have no idea whether or not you understand the definition of "theory" as it relates to "scientific theory". However, from what I've seen, people who say "it's just a theory" are usually equating the word "theory" with the word "guess", which is the wrong definition. Having the wrong definition of the word "theory" doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it does make you more likely to dismiss scientific evidence as "guesswork", which would undermine your argument.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I think most educated people understand "scientific theory" as being much much more than guessing; however, that does not change the fact that it is not proof.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
1 + 1 = 3
Quote:
π is exactly 3.2
The difference is those are not theories. The analogy isn't quite accurate.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
The difference is those are not theories.
I refer you to my earlier post[^] - the term "scientific theory" does not mean "guess". The word has a very specific meaning, which many people seem to either miss or deliberately ignore.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I think most educated people understand "scientific theory" as being much much more than guessing; however, that does not change the fact that it is not proof.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
that does not change the fact that it is not proof
So what? We should just give up and believe the same thing as our parents, because a bunch of farmers 5000 years ago claimed that their ideas were "facts" and not "theories"? A scientific theory may not constitute absolute proof, but until a new theory comes along that better explains the evidence, it's the best we've got.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
The difference is those are not theories.
I refer you to my earlier post[^] - the term "scientific theory" does not mean "guess". The word has a very specific meaning, which many people seem to either miss or deliberately ignore.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I understand. However, saying 1+1=3 is ludicrous because it is not. 1+1=2 is a definition, it is a fact, not a theory. So, yes, if someone said that 1+1=3 you could laugh at them. But when someone disagrees with a theory, why would you laugh at them? You know, by your own definition, that your theory may in fact be wrong.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
RyanDev wrote:
that does not change the fact that it is not proof
So what? We should just give up and believe the same thing as our parents, because a bunch of farmers 5000 years ago claimed that their ideas were "facts" and not "theories"? A scientific theory may not constitute absolute proof, but until a new theory comes along that better explains the evidence, it's the best we've got.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I understand. However, saying 1+1=3 is ludicrous because it is not. 1+1=2 is a definition, it is a fact, not a theory. So, yes, if someone said that 1+1=3 you could laugh at them. But when someone disagrees with a theory, why would you laugh at them? You know, by your own definition, that your theory may in fact be wrong.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
When someone disagrees with a theory by pointing out genuine flaws in the evidence, producing new evidence which contradicts the theory, or providing a new theory which better fits the facts, then we will not laugh at them. When someone disagrees with a theory because it contradicts their magic book[^], then laughter is an appropriate response.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
When someone disagrees with a theory by pointing out genuine flaws in the evidence, producing new evidence which contradicts the theory, or providing a new theory which better fits the facts, then we will not laugh at them. When someone disagrees with a theory because it contradicts their magic book[^], then laughter is an appropriate response.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
When someone disagrees with a theory because it contradicts their magic book[^], then laughter is an appropriate response.
1. OK, who needs to be moved to the soapbox now? ;) Not only are you bringing in religion but also trying to be offensive. 2. The people that walked out didn't understand. Bill Nye didn't say anything wrong or anything that conflicted with religion. The story makes no sense and I have to believe there is more to it than is being said. 3. There is no such thing as magic. Magic is not real. 4. Only fools mock what they do not understand.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
You cannot show me the evolution of man from apes
Mainly because Man didn't evolve from apes; both species evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
MehGerbil wrote:
I only believe things that I can observe.
That's fine. As OG said earlier[^], evolution will continue whether you believe in it or not. ;P
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
both species evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
Perhaps you missed the part where the OP said, "it cannot be repeated."
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
We should just give up
Nope. That would be silly.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Nope. That would be silly.
Then we agree - we should continue to build on our scientific understanding of the world, adopting an evidence-based scientific approach. We also have to accept that the caucus of human knowledge is too great for any one person to know everything. Sometimes it is necessary to accept that evidence - and perhaps proof - exists and can be examined by anyone, even though we might not possess the tools to understand it ourselves. The only time we need to be concerned is when someone claims that evidence or proof exists but cannot be examined, or when those who are qualified to examine the evidence cannot agree on the cause.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
MehGerbil wrote:
You cannot show me the evolution of man from apes
Mainly because Man didn't evolve from apes; both species evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
MehGerbil wrote:
I only believe things that I can observe.
That's fine. As OG said earlier[^], evolution will continue whether you believe in it or not. ;P
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
That's fine. As OG said earlier[^], evolution will continue whether you believe in it or not. ;-P
Now see, I can be cool (1) with that attitude. I do find fundamentalist scientists to be a bit exhausting at times. NOTES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: Oh dear, does he deny global warming as well?
-
Quote:
When someone disagrees with a theory because it contradicts their magic book[^], then laughter is an appropriate response.
1. OK, who needs to be moved to the soapbox now? ;) Not only are you bringing in religion but also trying to be offensive. 2. The people that walked out didn't understand. Bill Nye didn't say anything wrong or anything that conflicted with religion. The story makes no sense and I have to believe there is more to it than is being said. 3. There is no such thing as magic. Magic is not real. 4. Only fools mock what they do not understand.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Not only are you bringing in religion but also trying to be offensive.
- No offence was intended. I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
- The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis. They believe that every word written in the bible is literally true, and cannot accept anything which casts doubt on that.
- OK, now you're offending the HarryPotterists, whose religion clearly states that magic is real! ;P
- But it's OK to mock fools, right? ;)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Quote:
both species evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
Perhaps you missed the part where the OP said, "it cannot be repeated."
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
People who do real science know the importance of the repeatability of an experiment. When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry if we'd of done science the way the average evolutionist does science I would have literally been thrown in jail. Funny, but when you get a pharmaceutical company on the line for a billion dollar line of drugs science becomes the 'observable', 'repeatable', 'falsifiable' kind of science. However, when some geek is blowing smoke about something that supposedly happened 500 million years ago nobody cares that it isn't observable, isn't repeatable, and isn't falsifiable - because truth be told, it doesn't matter.
-
Quote:
both species evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
Perhaps you missed the part where the OP said, "it cannot be repeated."
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
it cannot be repeated
That doesn't mean there's no evidence that it happened. The US War of Independence (aka "Kerfuffle in the Colonies") cannot be repeated, and there's nobody alive who remembers it. Does that mean you don't believe it happened? :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
it cannot be repeated
That doesn't mean there's no evidence that it happened. The US War of Independence (aka "Kerfuffle in the Colonies") cannot be repeated, and there's nobody alive who remembers it. Does that mean you don't believe it happened? :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
That's the difference between scientific proof and historical evidence. If evolution is proven by historical evidence then you've placed the theory into the same category as religious claims. If you remove the repeatable, observable, and falsifiable it becomes not a scientific theory but a historical claim.
-
People who do real science know the importance of the repeatability of an experiment. When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry if we'd of done science the way the average evolutionist does science I would have literally been thrown in jail. Funny, but when you get a pharmaceutical company on the line for a billion dollar line of drugs science becomes the 'observable', 'repeatable', 'falsifiable' kind of science. However, when some geek is blowing smoke about something that supposedly happened 500 million years ago nobody cares that it isn't observable, isn't repeatable, and isn't falsifiable - because truth be told, it doesn't matter.
MehGerbil wrote:
it isn't observable, isn't repeatable, and isn't falsifiable
Oh really? ;P http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm[^] Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
That's fine. As OG said earlier[^], evolution will continue whether you believe in it or not. ;-P
Now see, I can be cool (1) with that attitude. I do find fundamentalist scientists to be a bit exhausting at times. NOTES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: Oh dear, does he deny global warming as well?
MehGerbil wrote:
I do find fundamentalist scientists to be a bit exhausting at times.
I know Richard Dawkins isn't the most popular person with either side, but I do think he summed it up quite well:
Richard Dawkins:
Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by "truth". But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to dispute it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
MehGerbil wrote:
it isn't observable, isn't repeatable, and isn't falsifiable
Oh really? ;P http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/ObservedEvolution.htm[^] Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
As I stated before, I've no problem calling repeatable, observable, and falsifiable phenomena as science. So to the extent that evolution is observable, I believe it. The idea that Creationists believe that species are static is a straw man. For example: I'm not aware of a single Creationist that holds that modern dogs didn't 'evolve' form wolves. That is significant deviation. However, to make the claim that some change in genetic frequency (wolf -> poodle) says anything at all about the larger long time picture is nothing but unfounded conjecture. Here is a little illustration: Let's say I claimed that I'm an investment wizard that can double any amount of money you give me in 24hrs. To test my claim you give me $5 and I give you $10 back the next day. To test my claim you give me $20 and I give you $40 back the next day. Are you ready to give me $100,000.00 cash yet? If you'd apply that same skepticism to the merchants of the religion of evolution you'd have a crystal clear understanding of my perspective.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
I do find fundamentalist scientists to be a bit exhausting at times.
I know Richard Dawkins isn't the most popular person with either side, but I do think he summed it up quite well:
Richard Dawkins:
Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by "truth". But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to dispute it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Yes, Richard is a fundamentalist. He's also a very poor scientist if he doesn't understand the difference between the truth claim about New Zealand (observable, repeatable, falsifiable) and the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
-
Yes, Richard is a fundamentalist. He's also a very poor scientist if he doesn't understand the difference between the truth claim about New Zealand (observable, repeatable, falsifiable) and the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
MehGerbil wrote:
the evolution of man from an ape (not observed, not repeatable, not falsifiable).
And again, not claimed. Nobody has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes, with the possible exception of drunken students with a very poor grasp of evolution. The fact is that we have observed evolution in other animals, albeit over a short time-frame. To assume that humans are somehow special and not subject to this same process is rather arrogant.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
