QI Facts
-
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
-
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:
Are you ready to give me $100,000.00 cash yet?
Yeah, sure. Just send me your bank details and I'll transfer the money. ;P The main difference is that you are a concious actor; the initial results could be a deception designed to take my money. Evolution is a natural process, with no conciousness behind it; it's not going to suddenly decide to change the rules part way through.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
MehGerbil wrote:
Are you ready to give me $100,000.00 cash yet?
Yeah, sure. Just send me your bank details and I'll transfer the money. ;P The main difference is that you are a concious actor; the initial results could be a deception designed to take my money. Evolution is a natural process, with no conciousness behind it; it's not going to suddenly decide to change the rules part way through.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Don't get tangled up in the analogy. There are many physical processes that work the same way. Example #1: Day 1: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 2: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 3: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 4: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and it doesn't dissolve anymore because of saturation. Now a fruit fly might live to be 2 days old and if he were a good scientist he'd claim that two table spoons may be dissolved in a cup of water over a two day period. He'd be correct. Other fruit flies could test his claim, they could observe it repeatedly. If he were a frothing at the mouth evolutionist bot he'd claim that you could dissolve table spoons of salt into a single glass of water every day for 16 billion years. He'd pick on the other fruit flies for not believing that this process could go on the same way forever. He'd be wrong. Example #2: When it came to sending a man to the moon we had the best scientists in the world working on the problem. They did lots of maths, lots of physics, and lots of hard thinking but they didn't send a man to the moon until they did what? The didn't send a man to the moon until a monkey went up first. The reason they didn't send a man up first because despite the best minds in the world working on it they were unwilling to risk a human life until all the theory had been observed - repeatedly. Because when it comes right on down to it there is no replacement for actually observing something. Conclusion If you've got some observable, repeatable, falsifiable stuff you'd like to sell me as science I'm buying; however, I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, cannot be repeated, and is not falsifiable - I mean he can talk about it, but when he calls it 'science' I just laugh.
-
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
