Perhaps I'll be safe here

axocanth: One of our members, Angry Beaver, has a thread in the science forum entitled "The Science of Evolution is Actually Science". He started this thread presumably due to exasperation with a certain Creationist who has a thread in the same forum attacking evolution, and who unfortunately tends to delete any posts that constitute an embarrassment to his dogmatically held beliefs.

Therefore, the aforementioned Beaver decided to start his own thread where (presumably), as long as civility is maintained, a hundred flowers may bloom; opposing viewpoints may be expressed without fear of dogmatic bowdlerization.

That was the idea anyway.

Alas, as Lord Acton could have told you, even minimal amounts of power tend to corrupt. My recent contribution to his thread, which I will reproduce below, was immediately deleted.

The reason cited for the deletion was, "We don't do philosophy here".

This is already problematic. Is there any scientific experiment we might do to help us answer the question of whether or not the study of evolution constitutes bona fide science? Ans: Not obviously.

Generally speaking (not just evolution), might we appeal to the so-called "scientific method" to help us answer the question of what does, and what does not, constitute good science? Ans: Not obviously.

Said Beaver seems blissfully unaware that the very title of his thread addresses what is generally regarded to be a philosophical question, namely, how, if at all, is bona fide science to be distinguished from non-science, or pseudoscience, or metaphysics, or what have you. This is known as "the demarcation problem". Google and ye shall find.

Questions about what science is, what its methods are, what its aims are, etc., etc. are normally considered to be philosophical in nature; the bailiwick of philosophers of science, as well as those more philosophically adept scientists themselves. Beaver clearly doesn't know it, but he, and all those lengthy blogs he has posted in his thread addressing such issues, stand guilty of the heinous crime of philosophizing.

I will now reproduce the deleted content . . .

(Edited by axocanth)

axocanth: "And that is how science works" - Angry Beaver

Hi Beaver

I'd humbly suggest amending the above to: "That is ONE MAN'S OPINION how science works"

Personally I'd say that much of the above is grossly overstated, philosophically naive, and almost religious-like in its veneration of science. It's not my intention to engage in science-bashing -- I'm no science denier -- but if we're gonna talk about science, let's try to get it RIGHT. Let's not get religious about it, eh, guys?

The first thing worthy of note, I'd suggest, is that in spite of the writer's repeated warnings about "opinions" as opposed to "facts", what is being presented to us here is one person's opinion (!), with the implicit assumption that there exists a universal consensus among scientists on what science is, what its aims are, how it proceeds methodologically, etc., etc. -- and the writer is merely acting as a spokesperson for this consensus.

No such consensus exists. To suggest as much is effectively to say that all scientists in all disciplines in all times and all places agree on these matters. They're a bunch of homogeneous clones! Needless to say this is nonsense; scientists are a wildly heterogenous group with divergent opinions on all the aforementioned issues. Never once, however, do we see the writer bow to humility and add "in my personal opinion" or "not all scientists may agree with me on this".

A few examples . . .

The writer suggests for our consideration the hypothesis/theory (I'll use the terms interchangeably) that humans have arms. Clearly, the implication is that scientific theories, although not provable, can be considered to be of the same kind as the theory that humans have arms. He tells us explicitly . . .

"We don’t have “humans have arms” in one pile that we like, and “dark matter” in another pile."

It would be just as silly, then, on the writer's account, to doubt the truth of the theory of dark matter, say, or the theory of evolution, as it would be to doubt the theory that humans have arms. They're both "in the same pile", after all. As the man says, "You see this a lot with people who dismiss evolution as “only a theory.” ".

Scientific theories are notoriously ephemeral; here today, gone tomorrow. Anyone who doubts this is cordially invited to examine a list of scientific theories from the year 1900, say, or 1700 if you dare, and ask themselves how many are still considered true. By contrast, as the writer himself somewhat incongruously concedes, "Admittedly, it [humans having arms] is not a theory that’s likely to have its edifice of evidence collapse any time soon."

In the same pile? If you had to bet on only one, where would you place your money? 1000 years from now it will still be believed to be true that humans have arms? Or such-and-such a scientific theory will still be believed to be true? Caveat emptor!

In a similar hyperbolic vein, we are next told:

"I know that things will fall when I drop them. That’s gravity. Duh, right? Well, the past 3000 years of human written human history seem to support that argument, yes. But that’s just a theory, right?" - the writer

Er, what's the point? That we have science to thank for the knowledge that "things fall when I drop them"? Clearly not -- presumably Neanderthals and Cro Magnons were well aware of this.

Perhaps, then, his point is that to doubt the truth of a scientific theory of gravity is as ridiculous as doubting that things fall when dropped. I once again invite the reader to research the history of the numerous scientific theories of gravity--all mutually incompatible--that have been proposed, from Aristotle to Einstein. Every single one of them, with the possible exception of the current one, is no longer believed to be true.

Next up: Immediately after another cautionary note on the dangers of opinions, the writer tells us that science is "an enterprise that aims to reach the truth."

Once again, an opinion is presented as fact. There are indeed scientists who would agree that the aim of science is truth (the so-called "scientific realists" ). But not all scientists are realists; not all hold that the aim of science is truth. Those of a more empiricist or positivist persuasion, for example, might tell you that the aim of science is "empirical adequacy" (i.e. just getting OBSERVABLE reality right). Those who incline towards pragmatism might tell you that the aim of science is increased instrumental efficacy, and so on, and so forth.

"Are we able to re-establish trust in the scientific method . . . " - the writer

I'd say--and many scientists agree with me-- that there is no such thing as "THE scientific method". I'd say our writer is complicit in the propagation of myths.

"If we know that every day the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, we can say with absolute certainty that it will do so tomorrow and every day that follows. And this will happen regardless of whether we believe it will: the sun does not, under any circumstances, care about our opinion of it." - the writer

The first sentence is either true, but vacuously so, or else a contradiction of what the writer says elsewhere (is it the same writer throughout, Beaver?).

If we do indeed KNOW--and to possess knowledge is to know that something is TRUE--that the Sun does what he says it does: rises in the East and sets in the West every day, past, present and future, then we can indeed enjoy absolutely certainty on this matter - by definition!

However, the writer tells us elsewhere that such certain scientific knowledge eludes us, and I quote: "You can never have 100% proof of anything. There will always be doubt".

"Even though Einstein’s relativity seems to bury Newtonian physics, he didn’t actually refute his predecessors’ theories. Rather, he refined them." - the writer

Oh yeah? Let's see what some distinguished physicists have to say about that!

"He [Newton] was also not quite comfortable about the introduction of forces operating at a distance. But the tremendous practical success of his doctrines may well have prevented him and the physicists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from recognizing the FICTITIOUS character of the foundations of his system." (my caps)
- "On the Methods of Theoretical Physics", Albert Einstein

Einstein, by contrast, was able to cast off the Newtonian misconceptions. His conviction that the Universe loves simplicity and beauty, and his willingness to be guided by this conviction, even if it meant DESTROYING the foundations of Newtonian physics, led him, with a clarity of thought others could not match, to his new description of space and time." (my caps)
- "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy", Kip S. Thorne, p79

"To present such new ideas without relating them properly to previously held ideas gives the wrong impression that the theory of relativity is merely at a culminating point of earlier developments and does not properly bring out the fact that this theory is on a radically new line that contradicts Newtonian concepts in the very same step in which it extends physical law in new directions, and into hitherto unexpected new domains"
- David Bohm, "The Special Theory of Relativity", preface, page xvi.

What we can say is this: In most of our everyday experience (i.e. relatively low speeds, etc.) , Newton and Einstein's theories yield predictions which are almost indistinguishable. But the predictions generated by a theory are not the theory itself! In terms of CONCEPTS--the stories that the two great men tell us about the universe and gravity--the two theories are radically at odds with one another, indeed logically inconsistent. The physicists I have quoted above recognize this. If one theory is true (general relativity, say) then the other is false, by basic logic.

"Einstein simply offered a more thorough explanation of the universe." - the writer

The writer continues to propagate mythology, in this case, the cumulative nature of scientific explanation. Einstein did not offer a "more thorough" explanation of the universe than Newton; he offered a completely different explanation of the universe. (See quoted physicists above again)

"Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality." - the writer

Yet again, opinion is presented as fact. In this case I'll grant that the opinion expressed is almost certainly the MAJORITY opinion among contemporary scientists. There are, however, always exceptions. Consider the following two gentlemen:

"This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of natural philosophy". [read "natural philosophy" as "science"].
-- Isaac Newton

"I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other"
- Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion" (2006)

"Scientific questions (aka hypotheses) are framed in ways so that they can be confirmed or disproved by evidence." - the writer

Disproved, eh? Add another myth to the collection, folks.

Topic: Science

(Edited by axocanth)

(Post deleted by axocanth 2 years ago)

zeffur: You hurt his delusional feelings so much that he deleted his unscientific forum & his screen name. The poor irrational, delusional, & dishonest bugger must be off to his therapist for a super-session...

(Edited by zeffur)

axocanth: The following was posted by another member in another thread:

"Okay, so this Berlinski dude isn't a creationist but works for an organization that promotes creationism...wtf???....at the very least it looks like the man has no principles."

Compare: "Jimmy has certain connections--perhaps he's the janitor

--with a particular institute, yet he does not subscribe to (all) of the doctrines espoused by that institute. He's obviously a hypocrite!!!!"

My purpose here is not to mock, but to highlight an extremely dubious inference.

A little background. David Berlinski is German-American polymath and public intellectual, secular Jew, and long-time critic of Darwinian evolutionary accounts (not evolution per se, as far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong about this).

Here's the man himself:

YouTube

Berlinski also has certain connections with the Discovery Institute based in Seattle, an organization dedicated to the promotion of so-called "Intelligent Design"(ID) -- the doctrine that what evolutionists call "apparent design" in nature (which they explain by appeal to natural selection) is not apparent at all; it is the result of a mind.

Berlinski, himself, does not advocate ID. He describes himself as a secular Jew, indifferent to religion, and a skeptic with regard the above issues.

Why, then, would a person who does not advocate ID associate himself with an organization that does? I'd suggest the following reasons:

Berlinski sees the current state of evolutionary science, or at least the dominant neo-Darwinian paradigm, as woefully hegemonic, intolerant, and dogmatic. On this, I could not agree more.

Consider, for example, the words of English evolutionary superstar--and militant atheist--Richard Dawkins:

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

On Dawkins' account, then, if you have doubts about what scientists tell us about evolution, there is something terribly wrong with you!

We do not see this kind of religious-like intolerance to heterodox views in any other scientific discipline, at least to the same degree of vehemence. One is tempted to use the word "fanaticism".

Science, we are routinely told, involves an attitude of healthy skepticism. Scientific knowledge claims, we are told (correctly!), are FALLIBLE. And anyone who has done some reading in the history of science (not the often biased "Whiggish" reconstructions of science popularizers themselves) will be aware that scientific theories are notoriously ephemeral; here today, gone tomorrow.

Berlinski, therefore, feels (as I do) that evolutionary theory ought to be administered a salubrious jab to the ribcage at every opportunity lest we find ourselves with a tabernacle inscribed with Darwinian dogma and start burning heretics at the stake . . . or at least committing them to lunatic asylums (remember what Dawkins said above?).

Next: YOU try writing a book critiquing Darwinian orthodoxy, as Berlinski has done, and see how much luck you have in finding a publisher. Woe betide he who crosses the Grand Inquisitor! It's hardly surprising, then, that Berlinski may have found a more sympathetic audience at the Discovery Institute press.

Moving to another topic, a frequently heard critique in the Wireclub science forum goes as follows:

"Berlinski, and any other outsider, is not an evolutionary biologist, therefore can be dismissed summarily. Only the professionals, the experts, deserve our attention. Trespassers will be shot!"

First thing to note is that this objection, though not entirely without merit, immediately runs afoul of the so-called "genetic fallacy". This is a logical fallacy whereby claims are dismissed based on their SOURCE as opposed to their merit. The fact that Karen is a woman, say, or black, or a Jew, has precisely no bearing on the validity of any argument thereby proffered by her.

Moreover, certain problems associated with evolutionary science are CONCEPTUAL (as opposed to empirical) in nature. That is to say, they are not the kinds of problems conducive to observation or experiment. If they are settled at all, they will be settled through a process of "conceptual analysis", i.e. THINKING!

Conceptual analysis is the traditional métier of philosophers. The philosophers ARE the experts in this case.

One example, I offer, is the so-called "tautology problem" which has haunted Darwinian theory since its inception. Some feel, including myself and Berlinski, that the principle of natural selection is quite vacuous, a truth of language not of nature. And if this is so, it is non-explanatory; it explains precisely nothing. On the assumption the above is correct, all of the putative explanatory power routinely imputed to natural selection is illusory.

(Edited by axocanth)

axocanth: A little more on the aforementioned "tautology problem" . . .

I noticed yesterday, in the religion forum I think, that another member (not the same one), a defender of natural selection, invoked the famous words of Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley, upon hearing of Darwin's theory of natural selection, is supposed to have exclaimed something along the lines of:

"How terribly silly of me not to have thought of that myself

"

Clearly, the person who posted this sees it as further vindication for natural selection.

I draw precisely the opposite conclusion: Huxley's remark gives us further reason to suspect that the principle of natural selection is utterly vacuous. As I said above, "a truth of language, not nature".

What do I mean by this? Let me try to explain . . .

Huxley (assuming the comment attributed to him is correct) could immediately see the truth of natural selection JUST BY THINKING ABOUT IT !!!

Notice he did not say "That's an interesting idea but it will have to be tested like any other scientific hypothesis". That which is true BY DEFINITION requires no empirical confirmation or disconfirmation!

Contrast this, for example, with Newton's inverse-square law of gravitation (or any other scientific theory/hypothesis you care to name).

Do you think anyone would have said, "How frightfully stupid of me not to have thought of that myself"? The merits of the inverse-square law cannot be appraised just by THINKING! Like any other respectable scientific hypothesis, it has to be compared against the data.

(Edited by axocanth)

TheloniousSphereMonk: Sorry, I don't know enough about the guy to say. Seems to me, however, that if his relationship with the discovery institute was as trivial as the janitors we wouldn't be talking about him...lol

axocanth: Yes, the janitor thing was to highlight the shakiness of your inference.

The Discovery Institute promotes intelligent design AND attacks neo-Darwinian theory.

Berlinski offers a helping hand with the second bit from time to time.

TheloniousSphereMonk: Yes, my inference was that he must have no principles. I shall be strive to be less hasty in passing judgement next time...lol

axocanth: Why not check the fella out?

I neglected to mention, he's also extremely funny.

Never takes himself too seriously . . . and I immediately award extra points for that.

axocanth: re: I posted the following above:

QUOTE
Moving to another topic, a frequently heard critique in the Wireclub science forum goes as follows:

"Berlinski, and any other outsider, is not an evolutionary biologist, therefore can be dismissed summarily. Only the professionals, the experts, deserve our attention. Trespassers will be shot!"
UNQUOTE

One can only wonder, then, why the very same people can be seen day-in day-out in the Religion Forum telling everyone what a load of bollocks scripture is.

On your own account, shouldn't this be a matter for the theologians?

axocanth: "Shouldn't this be a matter for the theologians?"

Personally, I'd say not. Historians, archeologists, etc,, may well have valuable insights to bring to the discourse.

And I'd say precisely the same thing about knowledgeable outsiders (Mr Berlinski, say) scrutinizing neo-Darwinian theory.

(Edited by axocanth)

zeffur: Atheidiots/evoidiots don't care about truth--they care only about their delusions.

axocanth:
Speaking of tautologies . . .

In another thread, I mentioned some of the core topics in the philosophy of science, all vexed issues that have animated some very sophisticated people for quite some time.

One of these is: "How, if at all, does evidence support a theory?"

Note first, that in this context, "support" and "confirm" are synonyms. To say that a theory is supported by evidence means exactly the same as saying that the theory is confirmed by evidence.

Therefore, the question can be reformulated, salva veritate (without any change in meaning), as:

"How, if at all, does evidence confirm a theory?"

The thread creator, with a little help from Google, labors under the misapprehension that these questions can be solved, over a cup of tea perhaps, with a jejune one-liner. The answer I was given was:

"How, if at all, does evidence support a theory? Answer: By evidence validating it beyond reasonable doubt, done by observation,testing, repetition, analysing, measuring, predicting etc all called scientific methodS (note: in plural)"

Topic: Science

Now, the site dictionary.com offers the following (among three) definition of "validate".

1. "to make valid; substantiate; confirm:
[e.g.] Time validated our suspicions."

To confirm, eh?

Well, now, if we substitute "confirm" for "validate", we arrive at the answer:

"Evidence confirms a theory by confirming a theory . . . "

(the rest of the sentence following the ellipsis simply misses the point)

. . . which, to say the very least, is somewhat unhelpful.

A wise man once said, "For every complex issue there is a simple answer . . . and it's almost certainly false."

(Edited by axocanth)

zeffur: Real & unperverted evidence & unbiased & sound interpretation of such evidence are used by people to try to gain confidence & trustworthiness in a belief/assumption/opinion/proposition/claim. The more credible the evidence & soundness of the position about the evidence, the more confidence & trust people have in the truthfulness of the beliefs/assumptions/opinions/propositions/claims about such evidence.

In the case of the absurd proposition of evolution, atheidiots & other nitwits pervert, misinterpret, & misrepresent the evidence along with their indefensible beliefs/assumptions/opinions/propositions/claims. That is the reason that sane, honest, rational, well-informed, & intelligent people reject such utter rubbish... They have failed to meet their burden of proof & have poor rigor in their 'science' & conclusions. There is therefore no sound reason to accept that any of their absurd conclusions are valid/true or have ever actually occurred. The fact that such rubbish is taught to impressionable children as 'true' is outrageous, imo.

(Edited by zeffur)

BelgianStrider: axocanth:
Speaking of tautologies . . .

In another thread, I mentioned some of the core topics in the philosophy of science, all vexed issues that have animated some very sophisticated people for quite some time.

One of these is: "How, if at all, does evidence support a theory?"

Note first, that in this context, "support" and "confirm" are synonyms. To say that a theory is supported by evidence means exactly the same as saying that the theory is confirmed by evidence.

Therefore, the question can be reformulated, salva veritate (without any change in meaning), as:

"How, if at all, does evidence confirm a theory?"

The thread creator, with a little help from Google, labors under the misapprehension that these questions can be solved, over a cup of tea perhaps, with a jejune one-liner. The answer I was given was:

"𝐇𝐨𝐰, 𝐢𝐟 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨��𝐲? 𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐁𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭, 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐭𝐜 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐒 (𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞: 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥"
Topic: Science

𝐍𝐨𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲.𝐜𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 "𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞".

𝟏. "𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝; 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞; 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦:
[𝐞.𝐠.] 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬."

To confirm, eh?

Well, now, if we substitute "confirm" for "validate", we arrive at the answer:

"Evidence confirms a theory by confirming a theory . . . "

(the rest of the sentence following the ellipsis simply misses the point)

. . . which, to say the very least, is somewhat unhelpful.

A wise man once said, "For every complex issue there is a simple answer . . . and it's almost certainly false."

Topic: Science

Let's first take this

𝐍𝐨𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲.𝐜𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 "𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞".

𝟏. "𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝; 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞; 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦:
[𝐞.𝐠.] 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬."

To confirm, eh?"

We can concede that he is honest to admit there are three definitions.
Though he omits to give the two others and just use the one that is suiting him (𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮

Of course when using "confirm" and put it in the partial quoted phrase you come to a tautology like that :
"Evidence confirms a theory by confirming a theory . . . " and he might correctly say this "(the rest of the sentence following the ellipsis simply misses the point)"

Let's bing the word "validate".
https://www.bing.com/search?q=validate+&form=ANNTH1&refig=07398b600e974421848e0e70f7da1c29

First hit:

"Dictionary
Data from Oxford Languages
Enter a word
Look it up
val·id·ate
[ˈvalɪdeɪt]
VERB
𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟:
"all analytical methods should be validated in respect of accuracy"
𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐟
"acclaim was seen as a means of validating one's existence"
synonyms:
prove · give proof of · show to be true · give substance to · uphold · support · back up · bear out · justify · vindicate · substantiate · corroborate · [More]
𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘥:
"a wide range of professional bodies validate courses leading to these awards"
synonyms:
ratify · endorse · confirm · approve · agree to · accept · consent to · assent to · affirm · authorize · make valid · sanction · formalize · recognize · [More]
𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 (𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴; 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 (𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦:
"without Patti to validate my feelings, they seemed not to exist" · [More]"

The one in cursive can be omitted for clear reasons I guess.

Now lets replace the word "validate" with the ones that are in bold:

-"𝐇𝐨𝐰, 𝐢𝐟 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲? 𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐁𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 "𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒚 𝒐𝒇" 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭, 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐭𝐜 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐒 (𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞: 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥"

-"𝐇𝐨𝐰, 𝐢𝐟 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲? 𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐁𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 "𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒕𝒉 𝒐𝒓 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 𝒐𝒇" 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭, 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐭𝐜 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐒 (𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞: 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥"

what makes it lesser senseless and not "tautological" at all and "the rest of the sentence ̶f̶o̶l̶l̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶l̶l̶i̶p̶s̶i̶s̶ simply 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 misse̶s̶ the point !!!!
Question: which "semantical" definition was my intention to use?

Quite embarassing when we go to look for the other definitions. Isn't it?

BelgianStrider: Moreover:

What about this:
" Tests made by third parties confirm the data of his tests giving more evidence validating that theory"
Any tautology in it and is that not quite often used?

And when using this:
" Tests made by third parties confirm the data of his tests giving more evidence "𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒚 𝒐𝒇" that theory" . Any tautology in it and is that not superfluous lenghty?

(Edited by BelgianStrider)

axocanth: "what makes it lesser senseless and not "tautological" at all and "the rest of the sentence ̶f̶o̶l̶l̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶l̶l̶i̶p̶s̶i̶s̶ simply 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 misse̶s̶ the point !!!!"

- Belgian

The question of how (if at all) evidence serves to support a theory is--like all core issues in the philosophy of science--a vexed one that some very clever people (including both scientists and philosophers) have been struggling to answer for a very long time.

BelgianStrider, however, labors under the delusion that he, with a little help from Google and a nice cup of tea, can put an end to the imbroglio in five minutes with a glib one-liner.

(Perhaps if he makes a second cup, he'll solve the mind-body problem and the free-will problem for us too before the hour us up)

His first attempt at a solution consisted of a tautology amounting to "evidence supports a theory by supporting a theory" followed by irrelevant gewgaws.

Belgian, here's why you are missing the point . . .

I know I really shouldn't do this (for you will doubtless return with more soul-crushing inanities), but these are your homework questions:

I want you to choose something that you consider to be evidence supporting the theory of evolution. And let us call it X.

Q1: Does X also support the theory of special creation (i.e. God did it)?

Q2: Does X also support the general theory of relativity?

And assuming the answer to the above is negative in both cases . . .

Q3: In virtue of what fact or facts does X support the theory of evolution but not the other two abovementioned theories?

(Edited by axocanth)

axocanth: For anyone else who might be interested . . .

When you hear a scientist (or anyone else) say that such-and-such constitutes evidence for such-and-such a scientific theory, it's a pretty safe bet that he/she is not appealing to any explicitly-stated, universally-agreed-upon criterion, or set of criteria.

This is easily seen by the fact that scientists THEMSELVES are not always in agreement about whether such-and-such confirms a particular theory, or if it does, how much weight does it add (i.e. is it strong evidence? Weak evidence? No evidence at all?).

If you wish to test this, next time you hear a scientist say "This is good evidence for my theory", ask her, "In virtue of what fact or facts does something constitute evidence for a particular theory and not another one?"

My guess is you'll get either a blank stare (

) or a litany of irrelevant logorrhoea (

).

What's happening, then, is that they are simply appealing to their own personal intuitions on these matters (i.e. "It seems like evidence TO ME" ).

What philosophers of science do (as well as some philosophically inclined scientists) is to try to find some objective standard that we might all appeal to.

If we had such a precious thing (don't hold your breath!), whenever we heard anyone making claims about evidence, we could simply refer to the criteria, check whether or not it actually IS evidence (for the theory in question) by satisfying said criteria . . . and peace would reign on Earth.

But hey, we mustn't be too sanguine about these things.

(Edited by axocanth)

BelgianStrider: I want you to choose something that you consider to be evidence supporting the theory of evolution. And let us call it X.

Q1: Does X also support the theory of special creation (i.e. God did it)?

Q2: Does X also support the general theory of relativity?

And assuming the answer to the above is negative in both cases . . .

Q3: In virtue of what fact or facts does X support the theory of evolution but not the other two abovementioned theories?

If you have a ticket allowing to have a trainseat from Boston to Chicago, do you think it will alow you to take the flight Boston to Chicago?
And assuming the answer to the above is negative; in virtue of what fact or facts does your trainticket not "support" a place for a flight?
Just ponder on that: because your questions are factual extremely similar!

(Edited by BelgianStrider)

zeffur: There is no real unbiased & credible evidence or sound reasoning that can support the 100% proven indefensible lie & fraud of evolution.

We all know that nature has no intelligence or capability to originate or evolve life & evoidiots just delude themselves that the indefensible notions of abiogenesis & evolution are valid/true. They do so not based on sound reasoning, but on their allegiance to their hatred of God/religion. There is absolutely NO proof & NO sound position that abiogenesis & evolution are valid/true or have ever occurred--hence, there is no sound reason to accept such absurd & imaginary notions--but, you have decided to do so, due to your own corruptions.

(Edited by zeffur)