The Three E's : Evidence, Evolution, and, um, Eggs (Page 8)

CoIin
CoIin:

So that's the way it's gonna be, eh?

Stand and fight, cad
9 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: May I also add ",God knows I need no help in such endeavors
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: No. And no selling vacuum cleaners or encyclopedias either.

9 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: I have and looks like always will be a very poor salesman
9 years ago Report
0
quarks
quarks: mostly my intregue is in Orkanen's Monopoly wisdom and wish him know the fangs were real, with first loves deep bight I am certain he recalls!

as to Stoopid comments possibly mine are greatest but only in just! mostly to give Colin pains, this is because I am fond of his perspective and kindness. certainly there is better way to show my liking of his person than torment, yet have I to learn such civil behavior. so onward I proceed in futile task.

my Quarks are stricken with boredom, such as it be they do not like to entertain themselves so now I must grant them my attention ( :

*disobeys virtues rules of purchasing from kiosk takes place in corner spectating forum petting thine own Quarks*
9 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: iViolet: ?? I haven't a clue of what you just said ? You write like George Washington Farewell Address ?

( For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. )
(Edited by Blackshoes)
9 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: Let me explain, Blackshoes.

Concerning fangs. You too must surely remember how scary females were, when you were a young teenager?

As for stoopid, quarks and kiosk purchases, you'll need to read back a little.

As for you, iViolet, I have since overcome that fear of female fangs. I hope.
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I'd like to retract what I said on the previous page about all institutions and organizations (not just science) having built-in mechanisms of self-correction. There appears to be an exception.

Wireclub -- When are you gonna fix that goddamn Wordy glitch??!!
9 years ago Report
0
quarks
quarks:
Blackshoes
Ooops ( ;

Orkanen!
It is good a women very fair is undoubtedly behind this fallen fear of fangs!

Colin
Seems the Wordy has ceased evolving. Does Theory of Evolution account for evolution to cease or are you about to recieve a Noble?!


Heimdallr guards Bifröst. Which is bridge for gods to travel from Valhalla to here. You and I see this as rainbow because that is what the gods allow. Heimdallr needs less sleep than a bird; he sees equally well night and day a hundred leagues from him, and hears how grass grows on the earth or wool on sheep, and everything that has a louder sound. He has that trumpet which is called Gjallar-Horn, and its blast is heard throughout all worlds. Heimdallr's sword is called Head.
Since it is known, as it is told the gods only allow us to see things as they wish. Evolution either is that which we see or merely that which the gods wish us to see. After all a rainbow is seen when the Æsir take travel on Bifröst. It is deception of sight by the Æsir (gods).

Figured I add something that is different than view of Evolution and view of Biblical text. This is meant for thinking not to offend anyone. 
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: An interesting read, iViolet.

Not to be outdone, I thought I'd take the opportunity to post a notorious passage by philosopher W.V.O. Quine, excerpted from his fascinating and seminal paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism".


"As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer . . . For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits."


In comparing science with myth, and unobservable physical objects (quarks again!) with gods, Quine surely knew he'd be rattling the cages of devout science followers everywhere. For the record, though, Quine was no anti-science crusader; quite the contrary.

Does he have a point, though? Clearly science and mythology both posit unobservable entities as causes for what we do see at the observable level. And I've no doubt, along with Quine, that modern science does a much better job than the ancient Greeks. But is there any QUALITATIVE difference between the two enterprises? Or is the difference merely one of degree?

The outraged science fan might retort : "Of course there's a difference, dumbass! Scientific theories are TRUE. Myths aren't."


A bold claim, indeed, not to mention a rash one. And a claim any philosopher could refute in a matter of seconds.


Q1 : Do I believe in the Homeric gods? Ans : Certainly not; nor any other gods (with all due respect to Heimdallr et al).

Q2 : If forced to bet, would I bet on quarks existing precisely as described by physical theories of 2014? Ans : Certainly not. This strikes me as an extraordinarily foolish bet.


How about you, dear reader. On which side would you bet? For or against? And let's not be flippant here; let's imagine a child's life hangs in the balance. It's critical that you bet on the right side. Think VERY carefully before placing your bet.

Consider the countless descriptions of atoms, electrons and all the rest which have been proposed by scientists only to be abandoned or amended later on.

What say you, ladies, gentlemen, and pigs of Wireclub?
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
calybonos
calybonos: Limiting my thoughts and comments to sub-atomic particles and Supermen in order to stay on topic is cruel and unusual punishment, but I'll do my best......


Many scientists would not have a problem with the following statement:

" Microscopic objects such as electrons obey the laws of quantum mechanics, while macroscopic objects obey Newton's laws."

(Two worlds with strangely conflicting sets of rules, separated by an almost mystical barrier )

Many Theologians would not have a problem with the following statement:

" God is the creator of the heavens and earth, and mankind is, in essence, his children."

( Two worlds with strangely conflicting sets of rules, separated by an almost mystical barrier )


The scientist, if they trust or have faith in their observations, believe that at a quantum level, the laws of their physics, can and do behave differently than the laws that govern the macroscopic and the world of we observers, must therefore admit to the possibility that the observable Universe is built on a foundation that cannot be explained by any of present day's methods or calculations.

The Theologian, already believing, in effect, that the Universe obeys unexplainable laws akin to the quantum level, bypasses the observable laws of the macroscopic to give order to the chaotic paradoxes that confront him.


The problem for both, it would seem, is in finding a way to reconcile, or unify, the two worlds in a way in which they could be so radically opposed, and yet somehow co-exist.
And failing that, at least find a way to keep the collection plate or grant money flowing, and to fill their lecture halls or pews.

As they say - " The show must go on."

But back to Q1 and Q2....

No and no.

(Edited by calybonos)
9 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: Interesting stuff, Caly

In response to your ...

"The scientist, if they trust or have faith in their observations, believe that at a quantum level, the laws of their physics, can and do behave differently than the laws that govern the macroscopic and the world of we observers, must therefore admit to the possibility that the observable Universe is built on a foundation that cannot be explained by any of present day's methods or calculations."


... I wonder how many physicists DO believe that their theories of the very small are descriptions of REALITY; i.e. that they should be read literally (quarks DO exist more or less as described in the theories).

The alternative, of course, is the one that I've written extensively on in my Quarks thread, and that is that scientific theories which reach beyond observable reality should be given only an INSTRUMENTAL interpretation. The theory should be treated as a tool; a calculating device; a black box into which we input data and out pops accurate predictions -- but NOT a description of what's REALLY going on down there.

This seems particularly poignant in the case of quantum physics which, if read literally, makes a mockery of anything we might sensibly call REAL. A thing either is in a certain place at a certain time or it is not. A thing cannot be both a wave and a particle. I'm pretty sure Bohr and Heisenberg were instrumentalists in this respect. Meanwhile Einstein, as we all know, was the implacable realist (thus - since the theory does not MAKE SENSE, it cannot possibly be complete).

The exact proportion of scientists that advocate an instrumental reading over a realistic one is an empirical question -- one of us will have to go and ask the buggers!

Just to avoid any possible confusion, let me emphasize everyone -- both realists and instrumentalists -- agrees that the theories WORK, indeed work incredibly well. The bifurcation is over how the theories should be understood: realistically or instrumentally.

I leave you with the words of Brian Ellis copied from my quarks thread.



"I should think that many space-time and quantum physicists would be quite puzzled by the suggestion that the theories they accept, and work with, might literally be true, since they have no clear conception at all of the reality with which these theories might correspond."
9 years ago Report
0
quarks
quarks:
before I answer question 1 & 2 is this child who's life hangs in balance being aborted or already born?
-sorry Colin now your thread will explode of abortion debate! hijacked!-

*sits in corner waiting on angy feminists, consulting Quarks on mythology*

9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin:

Let's make it a cat then. Yes, a post-natal cat. I think I prefer cats to brats anyway.



Place your bets please
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
calybonos
calybonos: Hey now!

Why is Violet allowed to hijack your thread, but I always get the boot for whispering from the dark alleys?

It can't be because she's cuter than me.....I'm adorable AND protected by the ASPCA.
(Edited by calybonos)
9 years ago Report
3
CoIin
CoIin: A quick scan through the thread reveals:-

Number of Calybonos posts given the boot by me : one
Number of Calybonos posts given a self-administered boot : ten



You doing pig penance or somefink, guv'nor?
9 years ago Report
0
quarks
quarks:
this was such a pondering only could I answer in prose

Ode to Quarks

there are six Flavours of Quarks, and known Colours three
most common are Up and Down, lightest of Quarks these be

tis one The Strange Quark,  contrasting another The Charm
thanks to The Top Quark, The Bottom shouldn't cause alarm

it is said Quarks combine together in groups of three and two
Quark forces do attract in "colourless" combinations tis true

Murray Gell-Mann named the Quark, based on a literary quote
"Three quarks for Muster Mark", one James Joyce had wrote

to wager if Quarks actually are, this of you Colin doth now ask
answer correctly to save the cat, seems a rather daunting task

not to mention Homer's gods, Athena, Nike and Zeus just a few
are they false a myth he asks, would answer if I only truly knew 

as for me wager I will not do, cat's fate shall not this day decide 
with cat and Quarks off I go, searching out quiet place to hide

not from Colin nor Zeus do I flee, but distant thunder that I hear 
this doth serve to warn, hammer in hand Öku-Thor draws near



p.s. hope I am cute as a piggy wiggy
9 years ago Report
2
CoIin
CoIin:

Brilliant! ** applause **

Now THAT was unexpected
9 years ago Report
0
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: I'll most likely get deleted .But lets face it", if Scientist don't have the answers!.Maybe it would be wise to look at them that do ?

(REGARDING STELLAR EVOLUTION . . .

"Most disturbing, however, is the fact that despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation. We have not yet been able to unambiguously detect the collapse of a molecular cloud core or the infall of circumstellar material onto an embryonic star. Until such an observation is made, it would probably be prudent to regard our current hypotheses and theoretical scenarios with some degree of suspicion."

Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu - 1990. The formation of sunlike stars. Science 248 (4 May): 572.


"Despite the capabilities of modern detectors, astronomers cannot definitively say that telescopes have actually recorded the infrared signals of protostars."

Steven W. Stahler - 1991. The early life of stars. Scientific American 265 (July): 50.


REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE . . .

"What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing.

"Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either - despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which . . .' Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."

David Darling - 1996. On creating something from nothing. New Scientist 151 (14 September): 49.)
(Edited by Blackshoes)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Blackshoes

No offence, but I don't want people (most obviously yourself) blindly posting stuff they've copied from another source and reproducing it here without any analysis; perhaps having not even read it themselves! (which is precisely the impression I get from you in your copypasta frenzies in other threads).

Posters can agree or disagree all they like, but it's my hope that people will THINK. And thus far I'm very pleased with what I see.

Quoting other people is quite alright. But I want you to prove to me that you've read the material, absorbed it, and at least made an effort to understand it.

If you're not willing to make this kind of effort, I don't see why we should tolerate your graffiti.



As a general note (not directed at Blackshoes), I'd like to express my hope here that this thread might constitute a sanctuary from what regrettably seems to be the Wireclub norm of spite, insults, disrespect, unfounded accusations, ridicule, mindless parroting, dodging awkward questions, refusal to admit refutation, and a myriad other dishonorable debate tactics.

Posters will comport themselves with a certain degree of dignity or they will not post at all. Quite frankly, I'm sick to the teeth of being called a liar, dishonest, or otherwise insulted by small-minded people who, chagrined at being refuted through reason alone, resort to abuse.

(To add to my woes right now, it's common "knowledge" in the Wordy room that I'm a "cheat" and a "liar". Why? No prizes for guessing. Because (i) I play well, and (ii) I don't even bother to respond to the brainless flocks who opt to believe malevolent gossip rather than having the sense and decency to determine the truth of such matters for themselves.)

It seems, by and large, we humans never tire of causing pain, or attempting to cause pain, to our brothers and sisters.


But finally, once again back to Blackshoes, in your own thread on evolution you recently accused me of a personal attack on yourself. No such attack was made and I called you up on it. You have conspicuously failed to respond. What do you intend to do about it? Bury your head in the sand? Or do the right thing?

9 years ago Report
0
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
calybonos
calybonos: ( uıloɔ ʎq pǝʇooq puɐ pǝʇsıʍʇ ʇsod )
9 years ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Colin I read n understand everything . Well read everything .Understand almost everything

But finally !You twisted my words ! End of conversation !
I never said nor claimed I was infallible !
I stated ! I know !

(It seems, by and large, we humans never tire of causing pain, or attempting to cause pain, to our brothers and sisters.) It's called a sinful nature
(Edited by Blackshoes)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: One fairly standard account of scientific method goes something like this :

Scientists propose hypotheses/theories which subsequently face the tribunal of a stern Mother Nature herself through observation and experimentation. If the hypothesis/theory is found to be in disagreement with observation, then it has been falsified and must be rejected.



Well, that all sounds jolly spiffing, old chap, and many scientists and science fans will tell you in all sincerity that this is how science operates - this is "The Scientific Method".

Even the most cursory reviews of the history of science quickly reveals, however, that this clearly is NOT "The Scientific Method", or if it is, scientists don't follow it.

Scientists do not unfailingly ditch their theories with cavalier abandon in the face of prima facie falsifying evidence, as I've tried to show in the opening pages of this thread. Oh contraih, monsure; scientists will often cling tenaciously, nay, DOGMATICALLY, to a prized theory IN SPITE OF a glaring mismatch between theory and observation.

And it's a good thing they do. If they didn't, they'd have no theories left.

Even Karl Popper, architect of the doctrine of falsifiability as a demarcation criterion distinguishing scientific from non-scientific claims, realizes that things are not quite so simple as certain scientists and science fans might have us believe.


"I have always stressed the need for some dogmatism: the dogmatic scientist has an important role to play. If we give in to criticism too easily, we shall never find out where the real power of our theories lies." - Karl Popper
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0