Do you believe in Aliens? (Page 205) Lumpenproletariat: Achilles:"Bohm: "A theory that has real predictive content must then, as it were, "stick its neck out". But if it does this it is likely in time to "have its neck chopped off". Indeed, this is what did happen eventually to a great many theories such as Newtonian mechanics, which were confirmed up to a point but then shown to be FALSE." - David Bohm, "The Special Theory of Relativity", pp 149-150 (my emphasis)" "shown to be FALSE" means it was tested, according to predictions it made, and those predictions turned out incorrect. There can be no other meaning of "shown to be false" except that it failed some additional testing of its predictions. And it doesn't mean all of Newtonian mechanics is totally false. It may be mostly true if most of its predictions have turned out to be correct, whereas a substantially false theory is one with mostly incorrect predictions. So it's incorrect to say Newtonian mechanics is totally disproved. Rather, it has been replaced by more recent theories which are better, because performing better at making predictions. The theories can be ranked, from totally false, at the low end, to totally true, with most in the middle. There's nothing wrong with calling a theory true which is less than perfect but still having a good track record overall at making predictions.  AchillesSinatra: "The theories can be ranked, from totally false, at the low end, to totally true, with most in the middle." - Lump We've been through this before too -- Karl Popper, verisimilitude, and all that. It is, no doubt, intuitively appealing to think that one theory is more "truth-like" than another. Alas, no one thus far has been able to come up with a cogent characterization of verisimilitude or truth-likeness. Do you have one? If you don't, how do you rank, say, the theory of evolution and the theory of general relativity? Which is more truth-like? (Edited by AchillesSinatra) AchillesSinatra: "There's nothing wrong with calling a theory true which is less than perfect but still having a good track record overall at making predictions." - Lump Er, except that it's not true to call it true when it is not true. Lumpenproletariat: Achilles: "If you don't, how do rank, say, the theory of evolution and the theory of general relativity? Which is more truth-like?" I'm not saying everyone would rank them the same. But there would be some general agreement in ranking the 1000 most known theories. Aristotle's theory about falling objects would be ranked very low. Maybe 20th percentile. Heliocentric theory pretty high -- above 80 or 90th percentile. etc. Evolution has a disadvantage because it's about what happened in the past -- a million years ago, or 50 million years ago. If relativity is about the present (as much as the past), it's probably easier to establish it now, with modern experiments to show it happening now. Whereas there is no way to go into the past, with Zeffur's Time Machine to PROVE evolution happened through direct observation as he demands, through a video recording. So that might rank relativity theory higher than evolution. AchillesSinatra: Now here's the logical mistake you're making: Premise 1: My theory that it is raining predicts that if you go outside you will get wet Premise 2: You go outside and you get wet Conclusion: My theory is true It could be you do indeed get wet, but not because it's raining. The neighbour might be spraying water around or something.  AchillesSinatra: I'm not saying everyone would rank them the same. But there would be some general agreement in ranking the 1000 most known theories. Aristotle's theory about falling objects would be ranked very low. Maybe 20th percentile. Heliocentric theory pretty high -- above 80 or 90th percentile. etc. Evolution has a disadvantage because it's about what happened in the past -- a million years ago, or 50 million years ago. If relativity is about the present (as much as the past), it's probably easier to establish it now, with modern experiments to show it happening now. Whereas there is no way to go into the past, with Zeffur's Time Machine to PROVE evolution happened through direct observation as he demands, through a video recording. So that might rank relativity theory higher than evolution. - LUMP Dude, you're just pulling numbers out your head. I.e. making up crap. (Edited by AchillesSinatra) AchillesSinatra: "But it's always the better performance of one theory over the other which finally causes the scientists to prefer that theory over the other. I.e., its better performance in terms of its predictions being more accurate, or turning out to be correct, over many tests, or many trials." - Lump This is an interesting point, though quite obviously false. Consider the case of the Ptolemaic theory vs the Copernican theory circa 1600. It was not the case that the predictions of the Copernican theory were better than those of the Ptolemaic. And there were extremely good reasons for dismissing the heliocentric theory (Copernicus) as nonsense. Galileo, and a precious few others (not to mention Copernicus himself), endorsed Copernicanism long before a compelling case could be made for it -- telescopes and phases of Venus and all that. It's not unusual to hear scientists speak of being swayed by factors such as "elegance" and "beauty" when the evidentiary situation is unclear. Einstein, in particular, talks of elegance and simplicity all the time as a persuasive factor. (Edited by AchillesSinatra) Lumpenproletariat: Zeffur: "You haven't shown even ONE real/actual causality hard evidence that proves evolution has EVER occurred. What are you waiting for?" I'm waiting for them to invent the time machine which would be necessary for us to be able to do the direct observation you're demanding. We cannot see the actual animals giving birth to the next generation, each time. If we could get those video recordings, to see it actually happening, and replay the events to enough researchers watching each species, to see the changes occurring over 10 or 20 million years, then we'd be able to produce the evidence you're demanding. ________________ Z: "Show me these actual primitive older & newer fossils that actually show evolution & not just variations in size, texture, & normal variations like we might find if we examined the past 5000 years of human bones that would show a plethora of differ sizes (midgets/dwarfs, normal/average, diseased, giants, every kind of head shape that you can imagine & others that you never knew existed, etc." As long as you're asking for fossils available now, the researchers say they have them, showing enough of the transitional forms to indicate the changes and the evolution over enough generations. I just believe them that they have found those bits of evidence, because virtually all the scientists agree on this, about the transitional forms, and that it's possible for a higher form to descend from a lower over enough time. They claim they have found evidence for this. There may be some doubt about GAPS, but they claim they have filled in many of those. But without that time machine to go back and watch the actual descent of a later species from an earlier one, we can never have 100% proof, or maybe even 90% probability, of it. But it's probable that it happened, given that they claim to have some evidence to fill some of the gaps. Minus the certainty we'd get if we only had video recordings of the actual events, like you're demanding. Z: "There is a huge range of natural variations that can & do exists within each kind of creature that are nothing more than what is possible due to heredity--none of that is in any way evidence of evolution at all." It's all evidence that every animal must have descended from an earlier parent, with none popping into existence suddenly, as you assume. Evolution is the same "natural variations" occurring over a still longer period. So it can reach way back to even before complex forms existed, and every individual descending from an earlier parent, and none popping into existence suddenly with no parent, as your theory requires. Hopefully they'll finally invent the time machine to take them back so they can actually record the events, in a replay of them, so we could have the kind of proof you require. I agree with you that it would be nice if we could have that kind of evidence, to make it more certain instead of only 90% probable.  zeffur: re: "Lumpenproletariat: ...I agree with you that it would be nice if we could have that kind of evidence, to make it more certain instead of only 90% probable." Lol @ 90% probable. More like ZERO probability. How did you ever arrive at 90% probable?? AchillesSinatra: Whenever someone says "I understand science" it's a dead giveaway they don't understand science. AchillesSinatra: To claim "I understand science" seems to imply there is something within that heterogeneous mess that falls under that rubric "science" that somehow unifies it all and can be understood. I don't think there is. And anyone who mentions "The Scientific Method" gets shot. zeffur: The scientific method would be a huge step up for the pseudoscience of evolution--which is just a straight up fraud---ancestors of mankind crawling out of the ocean & hippos morphing into whales--what a complete pile of unsubstantiated rubbish. AchillesSinatra: So your suggestion is that one myth (The Scientific Method) might help to ameliorate another myth (evolution)?  AchillesSinatra: Zeffur, don't you ever tire of saying the same thing again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? and again? zeffur: Jesus ascended into the clouds in the presence of hundreds of witnesses. Do you think there was a space ship up there or what? | Science Chat Room 3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
