QI Facts
-
MehGerbil wrote:
When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry
However probably not the best candidate when attempting to justify the scientific method.
I only use my experience there to illustrate the contrast between the sort of science that must occur when someone is going to inject themselves with a drug vs. the kind of science that occurs when someone is waxing nostalgic about unobserved, unrepeatable, unfalsifiable events of 1 billion years ago. People get really picky about what is and what is not science when lives are on the line.
-
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. The analogy isn't quite accurate.
It is in fact basically correct as an analogy. For the first case, "1 + 1 = 3" one need do nothing more than recognize that one is mostly talking about term definition. I can in fact define "+" to be something else. For the second that is just politics and is in fact stupid because it was put forth by a politician and not a mathematician. One might as well say that politicians have the right to dictate what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom based on what others think I should be doing...oh wait...they do that don't they?
-
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:
1+1=2 is a definition, it is a fact, not a theory.
Yep that is exactly the problem. People, well educated people, who take some or all of science and exalt it to an absolute Truth because they fail to recognize or perhaps never even learned the basics of which all science is based upon.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
There's a world of difference between those two positions. It's a shame you can't see that.
In 1950 the consensus among the scientists of the world was that homosexuality was a mental illness. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association didn't declassify it as a mental illness until 1973. So in 1950 if you were to make the claim that homosexuality was natural I could use your own words in response:
Richard Deeming wrote:
The difference is, I am taking the word of a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories. After all, you don't get a Nobel prize for agreeing with everyone else!
If that quote doesn't work for the status of homosexuality in 1950 than it doesn't hold for evolutionary theory in 2013 either. This can be cited for a dozen 'facts' which the scientific community agreed upon which later turned out to be false. I've illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is true.
Richard Deeming wrote:
They are actively discouraged from questioning the claims, because to do so is blasphemous.
You mean, like the Sunday School teacher might log onto a technology forum and talk about how stupid other people are with what they believe? Go question evolution and see what you get called.
MehGerbil wrote:
In fact, the American Psychiatric Association didn't declassify it as a mental illness until 1973.
<SARCASM> Wait, you mean they changed their views based on the evidence? That doesn't sound very sensible, does it? They should have just said, "our predecessors believed this to be the case, so we believe it as well". </SARCASM>
MehGerbil wrote:
I've illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is true.
You've also illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus, unlike religious dogma, changes to reflect any new evidence. Whilst there have been minor changes to the theory of evolution as new evidence has come to light, the central concept has not changed. That doesn't guarantee that's it's definitely "The Truth", but it's a good sign that the theory is robust. Unless and until significant new evidence is presented, evolution is the best tool we have to describe the variety of life on our planet. And even if a new theory does emerge, it doesn't necessarily make the current theory worthless. Newton's theory of gravitation is still the best approach for any non-relativistic calculations, despite the fact that it has been superseded by general relativity.
MehGerbil wrote:
You mean, like the Sunday School teacher might log onto a technology forum and talk about how stupid other people are with what they believe?
No, I mean like the teacher might start questioning whether every word in the bible has to be taken literally; whether transubstantiation is a real thing; whether the physical resurrection of their messiah is a core pre-requisite of their faith. Religions don't have a good track-record for dealing with heretics and apostates. Not that science is perfect in that regard. There have certainly been scientists who have been shunned for their theories, only to be proven right at a later date. But that's more to do with the politics of the scientific community. The scientific method is built around the idea of challenging the consensus; it's just that individuals often find it hard to embrace that idea.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
-
RyanDev wrote:
The difference is those are not theories. The analogy isn't quite accurate.
It is in fact basically correct as an analogy. For the first case, "1 + 1 = 3" one need do nothing more than recognize that one is mostly talking about term definition. I can in fact define "+" to be something else. For the second that is just politics and is in fact stupid because it was put forth by a politician and not a mathematician. One might as well say that politicians have the right to dictate what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom based on what others think I should be doing...oh wait...they do that don't they?
Quote:
I can in fact define "+" to be something else.
In that case we would laugh because it has been established as a fact that 1+1=2. It's proof, fact, truth, not theory.
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
Richard Deeming wrote:
The only time we need to be concerned is when someone claims that evidence or proof exists but cannot be examined,
But to be fair when was that last time that you did a scientific test that proved the authenticity, for yourself, for the dinosaur bones in your local museum? When was the last time that you even applied to the museum to do that? Or what about dissecting a cadaver to check the that that thumping in the chest really, really is a heart. The reality is that the vast, vast majority of 'science' that even scientists accept is based on faith and nothing more. Much less the general population. They haven't done the tests. They haven't even read most of the literature. They don't know the people involved. They don't even know the processes involved. After all do hear surgeons know what sort of review process a civil engineer goes through to get a bridge built? Presumably neither believes the other uses magic but that doesn't mean that their understanding of what the other does is any different than presuming it to be little more than magic.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
None of these things are things you've tested for yourself - you don't understand the science - you're taking someone else's word for it.
Given the vast caucus of human knowledge, the days when one person could fully understand everything are long gone. Since we can't personally know, understand, and test every scientific theory, we have to take someone's word for it. The difference is, I am taking the word of a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories. After all, you don't get a Nobel prize for agreeing with everyone else! The child sitting in Sunday School is taking the word of a teacher, who is taking the word of a priest, who was taking the word of their priest, etc., going back thousands of years. The "evidence" to support their claims is never available for public scrutiny, and cannot be subjected to scientific examination. They are actively discouraged from questioning the claims, because to do so is blasphemous. There's a world of difference between those two positions. It's a shame you can't see that.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
we have to take someone's word for it.
Quote:
a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories.
The irony here is you can say the exact same thing, except for the bolded part, about religion. And that's that, since we can't talk religion here. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
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.
MehGerbil wrote:
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.
Very probably he is wrong. But to be fair the fruit flies are not even trying to explain what they think is happening. Nor are they trying to understand why he is frothing at the mouth. Instead they do nothing but roll their eyes and say he is "wrong". Which of course does nothing to demonstrate the intelligence of the fruit fly. Probably only demonstrates that they can regurgitate what they were taught and nothing more.
-
RyanDev wrote:
supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA
Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent:
All science is based on assumptions. Every single piece. If I start with the assumption that there is no supernatural explanation then Evolutionary Theory pretty much follows. If I start with the assumption that there is a God (Judeo-Christian in this case) and that the world was created 6000 years ago I can explain every single piece of evidence that you can produce now and in the future and still remain consistent with the assumption. I wouldn't be refuting it merely explaining how it exists with respect to the assumption. The only difference in the above is the assumption. I can do the same with Noah's Ark for that matter.
-
I have no general interest in the subject. But just bored at work redesigning a database schema to work around some specification changes so just having fun to see IF Dave would directly answer rather than skirt around it.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
Sounds to me like your specification is evolving ;)
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Yeah, church as a organization really tried to suppress scientific advancement. But religious people were capable of overcoming that suppression and laying the foundations of today's theories, that was my point, being religious does not automaticaly implies that the person has no capacity for scientific thinking.
What astonishes me is the number of highly intelligent and capable people who are religious as I consider religion the panacea of a weak mind.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
MehGerbil wrote:
In fact, the American Psychiatric Association didn't declassify it as a mental illness until 1973.
<SARCASM> Wait, you mean they changed their views based on the evidence? That doesn't sound very sensible, does it? They should have just said, "our predecessors believed this to be the case, so we believe it as well". </SARCASM>
MehGerbil wrote:
I've illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is true.
You've also illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus, unlike religious dogma, changes to reflect any new evidence. Whilst there have been minor changes to the theory of evolution as new evidence has come to light, the central concept has not changed. That doesn't guarantee that's it's definitely "The Truth", but it's a good sign that the theory is robust. Unless and until significant new evidence is presented, evolution is the best tool we have to describe the variety of life on our planet. And even if a new theory does emerge, it doesn't necessarily make the current theory worthless. Newton's theory of gravitation is still the best approach for any non-relativistic calculations, despite the fact that it has been superseded by general relativity.
MehGerbil wrote:
You mean, like the Sunday School teacher might log onto a technology forum and talk about how stupid other people are with what they believe?
No, I mean like the teacher might start questioning whether every word in the bible has to be taken literally; whether transubstantiation is a real thing; whether the physical resurrection of their messiah is a core pre-requisite of their faith. Religions don't have a good track-record for dealing with heretics and apostates. Not that science is perfect in that regard. There have certainly been scientists who have been shunned for their theories, only to be proven right at a later date. But that's more to do with the politics of the scientific community. The scientific method is built around the idea of challenging the consensus; it's just that individuals often find it hard to embrace that idea.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
Okay, this would be an example of why I don't typically participate in these discussions. People get really irrational when defending their mythologies. The point about the American Psychiatric Association and their view on homosexuality was to illustrate that your logical fallacy (appeal to authority, appeal to masses) was demonstrably wrong. Instead of admitting the point you simply adopted the point (scientists may be wrong) and are now trumpeting it as a strength of science. Unfortunately for you, I can still beat you there. You see, you admit that the American Psychiatric Association can change their views and you admit in the same post that sometimes the truth is buried because that's more to do with the politics of the scientific community. So when the APA held that homosexuality was a mental illness was it due to evidence or politics? So when the APA changed their view on the topic was it due to evidence or politics? The truth is, you don't actually know for sure either way. You think they've got evidence that informs their ruling because that is what they tell you. Your position on the APA and homosexuality is identical to a little boy believing his Sunday School teacher. Incidentally, you may have the last word as I tire of the circles. :-D
-
MehGerbil wrote:
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.
Very probably he is wrong. But to be fair the fruit flies are not even trying to explain what they think is happening. Nor are they trying to understand why he is frothing at the mouth. Instead they do nothing but roll their eyes and say he is "wrong". Which of course does nothing to demonstrate the intelligence of the fruit fly. Probably only demonstrates that they can regurgitate what they were taught and nothing more.
I don't see where anyone said evolution is wrong. I don't think anyone can say that - I mean, they can believe it is wrong but it will never be proven wrong. The theory is so elastic, so bendable that you can insert a billion years into the timeline at any point and the glob just rolls on completely unmarred. You can have dinosaurs cold blooded or warm blooded based on the availability of a grant or positive press - it does no damage to the theory because it is a vapor, apparently there, but of no real substance.
-
The answer to my next question may determine that. How do you explain the vast multiplicity of life, its relative nearness of one species to another, and the universality of certain biological and biochemical functions even amongst very disparate genera? If not evolution, then what? Space Pixies and Magic Dust?
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
I think the point is that many people simply don't give a fart, and don't even give it any thought -- presumably because they're far too busy with important stuff like analysing Coronation Street, their bank balances, or football results/statistics. Those of us who do give it any thought have obviously got the wrong priorities.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Only the students. By the time they reach professorhood, they've lost all faith.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Nice, an ad hominem attack and a suggestion that I was making a religious argument. More fuel to my point that the evolutionist are just as bad as the creationists.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Nice, an ad hominem attack
It wasn't an attack on the person.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
and a suggestion that I was making a religious argument
It certainly looks like one to me.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
More fuel to my point that the evolutionist are just as bad as the creationists.
Whatever label, there's always people who actually refuse to think. Good and bad are als merely labels, and they're usually religously colored.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
What astonishes me is the number of highly intelligent and capable people who are religious as I consider religion the panacea of a weak mind.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
The human mind is weak and religion is the panacea, created to explain what we can not. Realizing the amount of stuff we don't know and taking a glance at the possibilities can be devastating to the mind, that's why people turn to religion. One example of such realization is Sir Arthur C. Clarke's Quote:
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke:
Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
Once we know the "truth", we get used to it. But, in the mean time, the possibilities make we look for confort, and religion is aways there to say that you don't have to think about it, after all, it's some god's work. And just because i like his quotes, i'll drop this one here too:
Sir Arthur Charles Clarke:
If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run — and often in the short one — the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative.
-
It's not the fact that scientist call it a theory (Which is is, otherwise it would be called the law of evolution; on a side not, I love watching a adamant evolutionist state, "Well it's pretty much a law" but that will be addressed later. It's not the holes in the theory (personally I think evolution is a pretty good theory as for what we have going) My problem with evolution, is that fundamentalist bigots are usually on the wrong side. Sure I expect the christian right to by fairly opposed but I have yet to meet an evolutionist who is wiling to concede that it is just a theory and they go to name calling fast. No offense DD but calling people stupid because they don't agree with you is bigotry [but only because of my limited vocabulary], (Yes, yes, I know it is pretty much a law) So my fundamental believe is not in evolution but that evolution fits into a larger puzzle and that only time will tell which it is.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
I followed a coursera course on the history of Humankind. When the teacher explains what is science he calls it "The discovery of ignorance". In a good way. The birth of Science is when humankind started to dare to say : "I don't know but let's figure out". Before science, religion "knew it all". By definition evolutionism is from religion, and religion is not driven by doubt, but by certainty. Only science embraces doubt.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
The only time we need to be concerned is when someone claims that evidence or proof exists but cannot be examined,
But to be fair when was that last time that you did a scientific test that proved the authenticity, for yourself, for the dinosaur bones in your local museum? When was the last time that you even applied to the museum to do that? Or what about dissecting a cadaver to check the that that thumping in the chest really, really is a heart. The reality is that the vast, vast majority of 'science' that even scientists accept is based on faith and nothing more. Much less the general population. They haven't done the tests. They haven't even read most of the literature. They don't know the people involved. They don't even know the processes involved. After all do hear surgeons know what sort of review process a civil engineer goes through to get a bridge built? Presumably neither believes the other uses magic but that doesn't mean that their understanding of what the other does is any different than presuming it to be little more than magic.
jschell wrote:
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of 'science' that even scientists accept is based on faith and nothing more.
Not quite. It would be based on faith if the evidence was not available to be examined. In all of the cases you've mentioned, the evidence is available; it's just that not everyone has the necessary background in the subject to interpret it. The days when any one person could understand the entirety of human knowledge are long gone. We all specialize in particular fields, so we all have to take someone else's word for it when it comes to subjects that we don't understand. It's just a question of whether we choose to believe a group of people who actively try to disprove their own conclusions and fail, or a group of people who argue that to question their conclusions is blasphemous.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Quote:
we have to take someone's word for it.
Quote:
a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories.
The irony here is you can say the exact same thing, except for the bolded part, about religion. And that's that, since we can't talk religion here. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
The irony here is you can say the exact same thing, except for the bolded part, about religion.
Nope. I have never claimed blah blah blah... Edit: Sorry, misread that part as "you say" instead of "you can say". :-O I would disagree with that claim. Faith is not based on a foundation of evidence; you cannot show someone evidence to support your faith and allow them to examine it. And I don't have a problem with that, so long as we can agree that faith is not science, and vice-versa. Also, the part you have highlighted is extremely important. Scientists are actively trying to disprove their own theories; religionists actively discourage people from questioning their beliefs. Given the choice, I will take the word of someone whose ideas have been rigorously tested over that of someone whose ideas cannot withstand scrutiny.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
