Why is Evolution really science! (Page 5)

BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Read again dear sir what I wrote may be you might notice the word "𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲" and 𝐍𝐎𝐓 "𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦"

claiming "all men are 200 cm tall" is just a claim. only when you observe all men are 200 cm tall you might say it is a "theory". though the fact that NOT all men are 200 cm tall It is NOT a theory ....
It seems hard for you to understand that
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: premise 1 of z is already false and can not be a theory
Thus what follows is pure nonsense.
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: "claiming "all men are 200 cm tall" is just a claim" - Belgian

Quite so. I can see no reason why it can't be described as a hypothesis or a theory either. Can you?


"only when you observe all men are 200 cm tall you might say it is a "theory" " - Belgian

If we have already ascertained that all men are indeed 200 cms tall, what's theoretical about this?

Doesn't the term "theory" imply some uncertainty?
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: moreover the fact of not finding men of 200cm amongs the pigmees does not disprove the theory as pigmees consuming milk became taller.
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: "premise 1 of z is already false and can not be a theory. Thus what follows is pure nonsense"

- Belgian


Hard to make sense of this (I'm sincerely trying), but you appear to be saying that which is false cannot be a theory.

If this were the case (assuming a bivalent logic, i.e. if it's not false then it's true) then all theories would be true.

How do you explain all these theories that are now regarded as being false?
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: "moreover the fact of not finding men of 200cm amongs the pigmees does not disprove the theory as pigmees consuming milk became taller" - Belgian


The theory that "All men are 200 cms tall" in its unqualified form, as we've been discussing, makes a universal claim about all men in all times and all places.

We have not been considering the theory that "All men are 200 cms tall . . . except for some".
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: "Quite so. I can see no reason why it can't be described as a hypothesis or a theory either. Can you?"

Oh yes I can, though I will let you go by yourself to look for the definition of "𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬". Come back when you might have grasped the differences in "claims", "hypothese-conjecture" and "theory" in 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

Doesn't the term "theory" imply some uncertainty? The answer can be found in your reseach.
I will give you some spoilers: yes in science it always implies a certain level of uncertainty as "absolute truth" is non-existent in science!

What you clearly are showing: you have no notion what is a "theory" in scientific terms.
It has clearly no sense to continue the discussion!

1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Can you confirm your theory "All men are 200 cms tall" with undeniable evidence?
In other words is it factual always the case?
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: z's deleted inputs were either insulting behaviour, (repetitive) total unsustained claims being moreover false or (repetitive) debunked fraudulent video's!
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: axocanth: "premise 1 of z is already false and can not be a theory. Thus what follows is pure nonsense"

- Belgian


Hard to make sense of this (I'm sincerely trying), but you appear to be saying that which is false cannot be a theory.

If this were the case (assuming a bivalent logic, i.e. if it's not false then it's true) then all theories would be true.

How do you explain all these theories that are now regarded as being false?

When it is falsified it looses the "scientific status of theory" and it becomes "obsolete". There are, indeed, in science undeniably many "obsolete theories"!
When it is even falsified before being accepted as a "theory": can you imagine it will ever be a "theory"? If you do; good luck!
And again you do give extreme good evidence you have no clue about the scientifical semantic of "theory" !!!
Again you also seem not to grasp what has been said before:
"𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡! 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐎𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲; 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲"

What can for sure falsify beyond reasonable doubt ToE? Many will say "precambrian rabbits" !!!
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: For me: it will be " kangaroo's fossils hopping from the middle east (Turkey) way up to "Down Under" " !!!
With Kangaroo, I 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 kangaroo and not ancient kangaroo like creatures !!!
My requirements should (seemingly), factually, be even lesser hard to find!
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: "We have not been considering the theory that "All men are 200 cms tall . . . except for some"."

Again: a clear statement that confirms you do not have any understanding about "scientific theory"!
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: @ Belgian

Regarding your continued insistence that scientific theories are subject to definitive falsification, that they can be contradicted by evidence/data, e.g.

"Of course we know that any finding that contradict a theory it will fall." and

"Evidence can contradict or confirm a theory." - Belgian (both on page 3)

. . . since you seem unwilling to accept my own explanation for why this is grossly oversimplistic, I ask you to consider the following remarks from Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg:



"Pierre Duhem and W. Van Quine pointed out long ago that a scientific theory can never be absolutely ruled out [i.e. definitively falsified - Axo] by experimental data because there is always some way of manipulating the theory or the auxiliary assumptions to create an agreement between theory and experiment."

-- Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p125




As for that pesky pre-Cambrian rabbit . . .

"What can for sure falsify beyond reasonable doubt ToE? Many will say "precambrian rabbits" !!!" - Belgian (above)


Oh yes, many scientists do SAY that the discovery of a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian strata would sound the death knell for the theory of evolution . . . and they are talking rubbish, I'm afraid, presumably due to naiveté about the philosophy and history of science.

Stop and think about this for a bit. Are you seriously suggesting that upon the discovery of a single, or several, pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils, the entire community of evolutionary biologists--EVERY SINGLE ONE!--would immediately and en masse declare evolution to be a load of crap?

This is the stuff of fairy tales, sir.



Well, what WOULD happen in the event of such an unlikely discovery? A few thoughts for your consideration:


* Such a finding would certainly raise eyebrows. It would be a shocking discovery indeed.


* It's possible that some scientists might indeed declare the theory of evolution (whatever that is today) to be false and cast it to the wind. But ALL of them? Again, I think you're forgetting that scientists are a wildly heterogeneous group -- they NEVER (or almost never) react in precisely the same way to novel evidence.


* What I suggest would happen, by and large, is that the reaction would be "Looks like we have some rethinking to do, boys". As history bears witness, what normally happens in situations such as these is that scientists will try to find some way to RECONCILE the puzzling new evidence with theory.

(c.f. Weinberg quote above: "there is always some way of manipulating the theory or the auxiliary assumptions to create an agreement between theory and experiment." )


* As history also testifies, major paradigms DO sometimes get abandoned . . . but usually not until an alternative presents itself. Right now, there does not appear to be an alternative for evolutionary biologists to nail their colors to.

Um, except for the G-word

(Edited by axocanth)
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: "Again: a clear statement that confirms you do not have any understanding about "scientific theory"!" - Belgian


And presumably you are privy to this understanding? Be sure to share with the world.


If there's one thing in these forums to puts me to sleep it's when some likely lad offers his one-line solution to a vexed issue that has animated the finest minds of the human race for centuries, if not millennia.

Are you aware that philosophers and philosophically inclined scientists themselves have been trying to capture the essence of a scientific theory (assuming there is such a thing) for centuries?

Are you aware that nothing remotely resembling a consensus on this issue exists? (e.g. the "syntactic" model of theories vs the "semantic" model).

But you've nailed it, eh?
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: It seems you clearly did not made your "homework"

"Pierre Duhem and W. Van Quine pointed out long ago that a scientific theory can never be absolutely ruled out [i.e. definitively falsified - Axo] by experimental data because there is always some way of manipulating the theory or the auxiliary assumptions to create an agreement between theory and experiment."

-- Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p125"

I do feel some misquotations by ommission here.

When data clearly gives evidence that the "conjecture " is wrong there are many reasons to abandon the conjecture.
When it is a theory that implies that many evidence made it beyond reasonable doubt valid.
When some data seems to contradict that specific theory it is quite normal (and human) that it will be checked again and again and again. If it really contradicts the theory that means clealy that it is NOT the best explanation and has consequentialy to be considered obsolete. Why do you think science has so many obsolete theories? Yup: some data did some day contradict that theory. Never thought about that mr the philosopher?



"As for that pesky pre-Cambrian rabbit . . .

"What can for sure falsify beyond reasonable doubt ToE? Many will say "precambrian rabbits" !!!" - Belgian (above)


Oh yes, many scientists do SAY that the discovery of a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian strata would sound the death knell for the theory of evolution . . . and they are talking rubbish, I'm afraid, presumably due to naiveté about the philosophy and history of science.

Stop and think about this for a bit. Are you seriously suggesting that upon the discovery of a single, or several, pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils, the entire community of evolutionary biologists--EVERY SINGLE ONE!--would immediately and en masse declare evolution to be a load of crap?

This is the stuff of fairy tales, sir."


Oh dear sir, the day that ever will happen (though the probability is extreme low, beware not impossible) the following will happen
- the guy finding that "wrabbit" in precambrian will get a Nobel prize!
- ToE will be put immediately in the waste bin!

This is not the stuff of fairy tales dear sir!
With that standpoint dear sir you give even some impression that you are convinced of some worldwide conspiracy to force ToE as science !!!

Such a finding or any finding contradicting any theory will induce conjectures to explain it better !!! Again the one with the best explanatory power and getting the most evidence validating it can become a theory.

Dear sir: you clearly are unwilling to open your eyes by doing self research! You just are obstinate and want to stay in your dogmatic paradigm!

For me the discussion can not be fruitful anymore.



Now for your info

Scientific theory:
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[4] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[5]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[6][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[6] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2][3]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. Some theories are so well-established that they are unlikely ever to be fundamentally changed (for example, scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, etc.). In certain cases, a scientific theory or scientific law that fails to fit all data can still be useful (due to its simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. An example is Newton's laws of motion, which are a highly accurate approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.[7][8][9]

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[10] They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive,[11] aiming for predictive and explanatory power. Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.
..."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

For me, dear sir, the discussion is closed!

It is quite obvious that your "theory" of "men are all 200 cm" is far from being a "scientific theory"; just a common vernacular usage of the word "theory"!


(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: "Are you aware that philosophers and philosophically inclined scientists themselves have been trying to capture the essence of a scientific theory (assuming there is such a thing) for centuries?"

And there we have it! filosophy ( I was expecting it )

Dear sir: are you well aware that with filosophy you can go in any direction and it seems not to be considered to be extremely exact science ???

Again a clear evidence that when speaking on a filosophical base, what is factually your goal, we will get nowhere!

I am extremely sorry to say you. But again filosophical considerations are not the topic here.
It seems also to be quite clear that you can not distinguish "scientific theories" with the common vernacular usage of the word "theory" !!!
It is thus totally useless to continue to argue in the "air" due to the fact we have a total different concept about the word "theory"! What has been clearly demonstrated!
In other words dear sir: in science there is NO filosophical considerations about the word "theory" it is quite well defined
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: Your Wikipedia "solution" (two posts above) to the vexed issue of "what is a scientific theory" is woefully inadequate, I'm afraid to say. And we've covered this before.

Consider only the first few words: "A scientific theory is an explanation . . . "


Let's examine the case of orthodox (i.e. Copenhagen) quantum mechanics. I hope we can all agree that QM is a scientific theory, indeed it is often vaunted as the most successful and predictively accurate theory in all science.

One of the towering figures of 20th century physics, champion of the "pilot-wave" theory in opposition to orthodoxy, David Bohm, has this to say:


"Quantum mechanics has no causal explanation. It is supposed to be one of its virtues that it is entirely random and statistical and therefore there is no explanation. It has no explanation of time, how one moment becomes another. That is, quantum mechanics is a theory of one moment, of one measurement, and there's a statistical probability of getting a certain result. Then you drop whatever you have done and start out with the next measurement, and apply statistics again. It does not explain how you get from one measurement to the other or in fact why or how any measurement produces the result that it does. It says the formula will give you the probability and that's all there is to it."

- "Meaning as being in the implicate order philosophy of David Bohm: a conversation" (found in "Quantum Implications: Essays in Honor of David Bohm" )



Bohm tells us--correctly--that orthodox quantum mechanics is non-explanatory. It may be descriptively and predictively accurate to a breathtaking degree, yet it has no explanation to offer for why we see what we see.

Proponents of Copenhagen orthodoxy, antirealists the lot, were quite explicit themselves about this. If you want to know WHY we see what we see--if you want an EXPLANATION--you're asking the wrong question.

Niels Bohr (not to be confused with Bohm) tells us "There is no quantum world".

This is what drove Einstein nuts. Science, on his account, must not only describe/predict what will be observed, but offer a causal-explanatory account for WHY this is so -- precisely what orthodox QM does not do.


Conclusion: Belgian/Wiki's "A scientific theory is an explanation . . . " will not do.

(Edited by axocanth)
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: pfffft now he is going to QM.
May be the mathematical model of QM has the power of describing and EXPLAINING: ever though about that !!!!
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: Oh, And David Bohm is simply confused?

And the proponents of orthodox QM are also confused about the non-explanatory nature of their theory?

Only you're not confused?

I shudder to think of Zeffur correcting Einstein. Please don't do this to me. Not sure my nerves can handle it.
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: btw the QM is so counter-intuitive that many experts are quite unable to "explain" to commoners like us.
I do admit QM is way beyond my capacities due to several reasons
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: "I do admit QM is way beyond my capacities due to several reasons" - Belgian


Oh, same here. The technical aspects are way beyond me.

Would it not be wise, then, to listen to what the experts themselves have to say on the matter?

Like, say, David, Bohm, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, et al?
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Though you seem to know as commoner as much as any QM expert ? Do you?
I am affraid you are the one using zefurian arguments
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: so you seem to understand everything they say? Congrats!
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: David Bohm tells us quite explicitly that orthodox QM (as opposed to the various "realist" interpretations that have been proposed) is non-explanatory; it offers no explanation.

You, on the other hand, with some help from Wikipedia, tell us that a scientific theory, inter alia, is an "explanation". Not only that but--contra Bohm, Bohr, Heisenberg et al--orthodox quantum mechanics IS explanatory.

Can you explain to us why the aforementioned physicists are all wrong about this and you're right?
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Btw what I know about QM, it is an extreme weird science more based on probalistic mathematical models describing and explaining what happens in that total counter-intuitive extreme "small" world. The Ruthenford model of the atom is totally obsolete for QM and still quite valid in chemistry!
Any idea that it is possible for an electron to disapear and reapear like that "poof "! Mathematical probalistic equations do describe and explains it. For me to be honest quite similar to chinese caligraphy!
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0