Is science being divided?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Science will become:

Divided
0
No votes
Physicalism
0
No votes
A matter of "information"
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 0

Averroes
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes » Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:33 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:39 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:05 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:39 pm


Causality has got nothing to do with it.
Thank you for this information. So this 'you' is just a concept which you have abstracted from the data?
Yes and I am not answering any more questions. You were supposed to be telling me your theory for how you came to exist ...
But now there is a problem. Since this 'you' is just a concept it has no objective reality, for it is an empty concept and not related to an object. Hence it cannot be what I refer to 'me'! Therefore you have not agreed that I exist but only a concept of your own making exist! Hence, when you ask me to tell "your theory of how you come to exist", the 'you' in the preceding proposition is indeterminate for me, i.e. it is not a reference to me but it is just a concept in your mind to which you have ascribed existence arbitrarily. You also were incapable of telling me the attributes of this 'you' except that it was abstracted from the data available to you. Moreover, this data that you said is available to you, were also indeterminate, i.e. you did not further explain what data was available to you! Your question is thus rendered meaningless because it lacks reference.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by A_Seagull » Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:03 pm

Averroes wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:33 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:39 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:05 pm

Thank you for this information. So this 'you' is just a concept which you have abstracted from the data?
Yes and I am not answering any more questions. You were supposed to be telling me your theory for how you came to exist ...
But now there is a problem. Since this 'you' is just a concept it has no objective reality, for it is an empty concept and not related to an object. Hence it cannot be what I refer to 'me'! Therefore you have not agreed that I exist but only a concept of your own making exist! Hence, when you ask me to tell "your theory of how you come to exist", the 'you' in the preceding proposition is indeterminate for me, i.e. it is not a reference to me but it is just a concept in your mind to which you have ascribed existence arbitrarily. You also were incapable of telling me the attributes of this 'you' except that it was abstracted from the data available to you. Moreover, this data that you said is available to you, were also indeterminate, i.e. you did not further explain what data was available to you! Your question is thus rendered meaningless because it lacks reference.
I don't have any problem! My communication with 'you' is regards your theory for how you came to exist, it is not dependent upon my belief in your existence, it only requires your belief in your existence.

Your failure to come up with any theory at all suggests that either you don't have one or you have no confidence in it, at least not enough to put it up for scrutiny in this forum.

Or of course there is the other possibility that you don't exist at all!

uwot
Posts: 3582
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by uwot » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm

Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
...experimentation and observation of the natural world is a crucial factor in scientific investigation.
Well yes. If there is nothing to see, what are you investigating?
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
You have to make a statement known as a hypothesis. That statement has to be backed and not contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world to then form part of the scientific knowledge.
I see. So Newton's law of universal gravitation is not science, because it is contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world.
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm
But the observation of fossilized remains in the earth strata does not prove that one species became another.
True, but science is not in the business of proof. The fossil record is evidence that supports an hypothesis.
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
These fossilized remains just proved that there once existed such types of species and not that one evolved into another.
Well, by calling fossils, "fossilized remains", you are already making an hypothesis that cannot be supported by evidence. There is no example of a scientist observing the remains of a creature turning into a fossil over 60 million years.
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
For you to be able to use induction to prove Darwinism you must at least observe some species becoming another...
You really need to understand the difference between proof and evidence. It would probably help if you could first understand the difference between 'synonymous' and 'means exactly the same as'.

Averroes
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:47 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:03 pm
My communication with 'you' is regards your theory for how you came to exist, it is not dependent upon my belief in your existence, it only requires your belief in your existence.
I cannot answer a meaningless question. There is no answer to a meaningless question. If the questioner were to provide an adequate description of this ‘you’, and also come with a clear description of the ‘available data’ that is in his/her possession then I will be able to understand the question and subsequently hopefully answer. If the questioner wants his question answered then it is his/her responsibility to make himself/herself clearly understood.
__________

Now I put this to anyone interested. If someone here, even without having had any sensory experience of me, nonetheless has knowledge that I exist and can explain adequately to me his/her reasoning for how he/she came to know of my existence, then I will give a detailed account of the origin of my existence as far as is reasonable and my knowledge permits, if God wills.
Last edited by Averroes on Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Averroes
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
...experimentation and observation of the natural world is a crucial factor in scientific investigation.
Well yes. If there is nothing to see, what are you investigating?
Please, note that it is only after investigation that one can justifiably conclude that there was nothing to see! As I was saying, science is the experimentation and observation of the natural world. And in the case of Darwinism, after scientific investigation, the scientists concluded that there was "nothing to see" (as you say)! That is why Darwinism was rightly concluded not to be scientific.

uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
You have to make a statement known as a hypothesis. That statement has to be backed and not contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world to then form part of the scientific knowledge.
I see. So Newton's law of universal gravitation is not science, because it is contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world.
Wikipedia has something interesting on that and which, in my judgement, points in the correct direction. Here is it:
  • Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation
Now it is true that Newton's law of gravitation provides an excellent approximation because there is much corroborating empirical evidence even though there are also contradicting empirical evidence. But in the case of the claims of Darwinism, which claims that one species can become another, there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsover to show that one species has become another. If you or someone else can show me that one species was observed to have become another through an experiment or observation of the natural world, then I will accept that it too is a good approximation! But since the time of Darwin, including Darwin himself, no one has ever been able to do that!

___________
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm
But the observation of fossilized remains in the earth strata does not prove that one species became another.
True, but science is not in the business of proof. The fossil record is evidence that supports an hypothesis.
I agree that the fossil record is evidence for the hypothesis that there once lived on earth animals with the structure as suggested by these fossils. But the fossil record is not evidence of Darwinism. Now Darwin himself was in possession of fossil record in his time already. Nonetheless, he himself already understood that the fossil record was not scientific evidence for his speculations.

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:
  • It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:
  • What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:
  • But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml

Moreover many modern biologists have expressed similar views about the fossil record not being evidence of Darwinism. For example Dr Micheal Denton who is a biochemist and geneticist wrote on this in a critical essay on evolution in 2015. He had this to say:

Dr Denton wrote:
  • IN Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Evolution), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates. This is the view that Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson defended in On Growth and Form:
    • In short nature proceeds “from one type to another” [emphasis added] among organic as well as inorganic forms; and these types vary according to their own parameters, and are defined by physical-mathematical conditions of possibility. In natural history Cuvier’s “types” may not be perfectly chosen nor numerous enough but “types” they are; and to seek for stepping stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.
    The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today.

    There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations.

    This was my position in Evolution.

    It remains my position today.
Site: http://inference-review.com/article/evo ... d-part-one
_________
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
These fossilized remains just proved that there once existed such types of species and not that one evolved into another.
Well, by calling fossils, "fossilized remains", you are already making an hypothesis that cannot be supported by evidence. There is no example of a scientist observing the remains of a creature turning into a fossil over 60 million years.
As I already said, the “millions and/or billions of years” of age is pure speculation and utterly unscientific. These are only claims which cannot be backed by any reliable scientific evidence. When I mentioned “fossilized remains”, I never mentioned any date whatsoever. A fossil can be recognized by its actual structural and chemical properties.

__________________
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
For you to be able to use induction to prove Darwinism you must at least observe some species becoming another...
You really need to understand the difference between proof and evidence.
Alright. Let us understand this difference then.

There are in fact different possible interpretations of the relationship between proof and evidence.



1. In law for example, proof is defined as convincing evidence.

From a legal dictionary we can read the following:
  • In law a proof is the conviction or persuasion of the mind of a judge or jury, by the exhibition of evidence, of the reality of a fact alleged: as, to prove, is to determine or persuade that a thing does or does not exist.
Reference:https://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p184.htm

In law proof is merely the subjective appreciation/judgment of the judge or jury who is to be convinced of a given evidence or not. In law, if an evidence or a set of evidence convinces the judge or jury then it amounts to proof. Otherwise it does not amount to proof. So in law, either evidence is proof or evidence is not proof. I call this a binary logical system of evidence. Therefore, in law all proof is evidence but not all evidence is proof.



2. In science, however, no amount of corroborating empirical evidence of a scientific theory can amount to proof of that theory. Popper explains that a scientific theory can never be confirmed by observation, it can only be corroborated, while the possibility of it being falsified in the future remains open. Therefore, all knowledge in science is tentative knowledge. In science no evidence or set thereof is proof. I call this a unary logical system of evidence.



3. There is also a third possibility. This is what I call a probabilistic interpretation of proof and evidence, under a Bayesian interpretation of probability.

From Wikipedia, we can read on Bayesian probability:
  • Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.

    Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated to a posterior probability in the light of new, relevant data (evidence). The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
So in this approach, it can be construed as quantifying over the level/degree of conviction that an evidence or a set of evidence gives. Each evidence is interpreted as convincing to a certain degree. Here instead of the binary concept of proof and evidence as in law, and the unary concept as in science, there is here a multi-ary (or n-ary) concept of proof and evidence. Some evidence will amount to weak proof and others will amount to strong proof.

So, here, we quantify over the level of conviction that a given piece of evidence confers. Let H refer to a hypothesis, and E refer to an evidence or a set of evidence, then P(H/E) is the conviction that one has in hypothesis H given one has evidence E. P(H/E) is a value which ranges between 0 and 1, i.e., 0 ≤ P(H/E) ≤1, where ‘0’ means no conviction at all and ‘1’ means complete conviction. Between these two extremes there are an infinite number of possibilities. The interval [0,1] can also be quantized into n equal levels and thus giving rise to n-ary logic. A binary logical system as in law corresponds to n=2. And a unary logical system as in science corresponds to n=1.

Therefore, under this interpretation all evidence amounts to proof. An evidence which gives a very small value for P(H/E) will be a weak proof and hence the evidence also will be called weak. So, in a nutshell, a weak evidence will correspond to a weak proof and a strong evidence corresponds to a strong proof. Under this interpretation all evidence is proof and all proof is evidence. If an evidence E does not amount to proof (e.g. P(H/E)=0) then it is not evidence for hypothesis H. David Hume and his commentator Lorkowsky vaguely alluded to this possibility in their writings, but of course not anywhere as detailed as the original account that I present here.

It is up to the individual now, whenever he or she has the opportunity to exercise his freedom of conscience to choose one of these possibilities to incorporate in his or her semantics. I would not find it wise if someone were to unwarrantedly impose his/her semantics on me!
_________________
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
It would probably help if you could first understand the difference between 'synonymous' and 'means exactly the same as'.
It all depends on one’s philosophy/semantics. If one were to adopt the legal semantics then they would be near synonyms and they would not mean exactly the same. If one were to adopt the scientific semantics, they would not even be synonymous! But on a probabilistic interpretation, they would be exact synonyms.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by QuantumT » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:09 pm

Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
*
I am an ape, Averroes, of the species Sapiens. And I might be - not saying I am - but I might be smarter than you.
How do you account for that?

You are on a crusade against evolution. Why?

uwot
Posts: 3582
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by uwot » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:42 pm

Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
As I was saying, science is the experimentation and observation of the natural world.
Ok, so you are taking a strictly instrumentalist approach. That is your prerogative, but the reasons why no one is obliged to agree with you are laid out in this article I'm working on: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=24022&start=15#p361755
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
And in the case of Darwinism, after scientific investigation, the scientists concluded that there was "nothing to see" (as you say)! That is why Darwinism was rightly concluded not to be scientific.
The problem that you have in common with creationists is that you want to argue that Darwinism is not true. For some reason, you think you can achieve this by demonstrating that it is not 'scientific'. For the purposes of your argument, you use a definition of science that only applies to some physics and little bits of chemistry and biology. Congratulations, you have provided a definition of science that excludes Darwinism, but Darwinism remains a compelling explanation for the origin of species and the fossil record.
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
It is up to the individual now, whenever he or she has the opportunity to exercise his freedom of conscience to choose one of these possibilities to incorporate in his or her semantics.
How very post-modern of you.
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
I would not find it wise if someone were to unwarrantedly impose his/her semantics on me!
Well no, but by the same token, you can't impose your definition of science onto others.

philosopher
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by philosopher » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:11 pm

To answer the questions of QuantumT:

1. Science is not being divided. While there are competing theories of the physical world, they all share the same goal of finding out what reality is made of, and more importantly, scientists are willing to give up their own theories if evidence is lacking or even against their theories. Science is not a contest of winning, but about finding out reality, whoever do so.

2. There is no gap between Schrödinger, Bohr etc. and the physicalists. It is a common misconception. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not about a fundamental randomness in nature, it is only a limit of knowledge of the world. The world tends to be more "fuzzy"/"pixelated" the closer we look, and becomes more sharp/clear when viewed from a distance. It has nothing to do with reality splitting into parallel universes, although theories exists to explain it that way.

What happens is that, like an analogy if you have a box with some variable content, you cannot possible know the contents. When you look at it, you know something about it. When you don't look, it can change its shapes/appearences so it looks different the next time you open the box.

It is not because the contents are varying randomly. It is because you cannot possible know everything.

There is a Pilot Wave Theory developed by de-Broglie and Bohm that is as old as quantum mechanics that says that although quantum mechanics does not allow for local hidden variables, non-local wave like hidden variables are perfectly fine.

Btw. the pilot wave theory is gaining more and more support, because it is the most straightforward way of explaining nature. The thing is, the theory does not make any predictions quantum mechanics/copenhagen interpretation does not. It makes the same predictions, with the only difference being it explains why/how something happens, for example the double slit experiment.
https://nerdist.com/pilot-wave-theory-v ... mechanics/

On to the Darwin-skeptics:

The vast amounts of fossils, carbon dating and other scientific research is evidence Darwin was right.
He wasn't right about everything, but in regards to evolution as explanation of nature, he was right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMOqV8rIYcM

I suggest you look up a science book or science documentary. There is a huge number of material on youtube, for free!

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1325
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by -1- » Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:41 am

philosopher wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:11 pm

The vast amounts of fossils, carbon dating and other scientific research is evidence Darwin was right.
He wasn't right about everything, but in regards to evolution as explanation of nature, he was right.
Darwin's biggest criticism during his lifetime which he was unable to answer was why siblings who were not twins did look different from each other.

He also could not answer his father-in-law why Mrs. Darwin's children were not dark haired with a stubbly nose and buck teeth like Mr. Darwin, but were redheads, with three ears and the nose on one side, just like the milkman, who served them with fresh milk while Mr. Darwin was penguin-, dodo-bird and turtle hunting on the Galapagos islands.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by QuantumT » Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:30 pm

-1- wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:41 am
Darwin's biggest criticism during his lifetime which he was unable to answer was why siblings who were not twins did look different from each other.

He also could not answer his father-in-law why Mrs. Darwin's children were not dark haired with a stubbly nose and buck teeth like Mr. Darwin, but were redheads, with three ears and the nose on one side, just like the milkman, who served them with fresh milk while Mr. Darwin was penguin-, dodo-bird and turtle hunting on the Galapagos islands.
I thought it was the mailman!?

We all contain genes from 4 people: Our grandparents. They also contained genes from 4 people: Their grandparents! Totally it amounts to appr. 30,000 people inside each of us! No wonder siblings look different! :mrgreen:

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1325
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by -1- » Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:56 am

QuantumT wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:30 pm


We all contain genes from 4 people: Our grandparents. They also contained genes from 4 people: Their grandparents! Totally it amounts to appr. 30,000 people inside each of us! No wonder siblings look different! :mrgreen:
Wouldn't one share precisely the same parents, grandparents, etc. with the siblings?

Each sibling from the same parents have exactly the same origins from whence they have come. There is no reason to look different (without mutations of each zygote in different ways.) Provided they have the same chromosome pairs.

Averroes
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:15 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:42 pm
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
And in the case of Darwinism, after scientific investigation, the scientists concluded that there was "nothing to see" (as you say)! That is why Darwinism was rightly concluded not to be scientific.
For some reason, you think you can achieve this by demonstrating that it is not 'scientific'. For the purposes of your argument, you use a definition of science that only applies to some physics and little bits of chemistry and biology.
Yes, the definition of science that I used is that of mainstream science as attested by the common English dictionaries and the practicing scientists themselves! Even Darwin accepted the mainstream definition of science that I used!!! And even Darwin found that his theory was not scientific by the mainstream standard of scientific inquiry. Recall these clear and unambiguous statements of Darwin:

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:
  • It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:
  • What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:
  • But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.
As a matter of fact, I am agreeing with Darwin when he wrote that his theories were not scientific! :-)

______________
uwot wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:42 pm
Congratulations, you have provided a definition of science that excludes Darwinism
Thank you for the congratulations, it’s very kind of you. I thank and praise God, the Almighty for the knowledge and guidance that He gives.

______________
uwot wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:42 pm
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
I would not find it wise if someone were to unwarrantedly impose his/her semantics on me!
Well no, but by the same token, you can't impose your definition of science onto others.
It has already been shown and also acknowledge by you that Darwinism is excluded from science by the standard mainstream definition of science. But not only!!! According to your own peculiar definition of science as well Darwinism is excluded! We have already discussed that already. Here is what I had said on that:
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm
You defined science as: a coherent explanation of phenomenal data without appeal to supernatural causes.

So if Darwinism is to amount to science in accordance with your own definition, then it must be a coherent explanation of phenomenal data. But now since you do not uphold spontaneous generation then it is not a coherent explanation. Consider the following. For evolution to take place it is necessary that there must be extant species which are evolving. Each species is then said to be at a particular state in the evolutionary process. But if the whole universe had a beginning in the Big Bang, then how did the first life began? You have to explain the origin of the first species, because otherwise there would be no evolution! So, there are two possibilities here, either spontaneous generation or Supernatural causation. Your science rejects by definition supernatural causes. So logically it should uphold spontaneous generation. But your science does not follow basic logic, so Darwinism fails miserably to provide a coherent explanation of phenomenal data. So in this way it is incoherent and hence not scientific by your own definition.

But there is more! This is truly an impossible dilemma for you! For if you were now to maintain spontaneous generation, then it destroys completely the evolution project! For suppose now you say that the first species were the result of spontaneous generation. Then if spontaneous generation is possible, why would there be a need for evolution? Every different species could then he explained by spontaneous generation and not evolution! And if you do not maintain spontaneous generation then there is no first species and hence no evolution! Whether you affirm spontaneous generation or not, evolution is denied! There is no way out for you from the dilemma! It is bound to failure.
:-). Anyway, it was a very interesting exchange that we have had on this subject. I thank you for your time and for your contribution to this discussion.

Averroes
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by Averroes » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:17 pm

QuantumT wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:09 pm
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
*
I am an ape, Averroes, of the species Sapiens. And I might be - not saying I am - but I might be smarter than you.
How do you account for that?
I don't!!! If you say you are an ape then an ape you are for me now! :D

uwot
Posts: 3582
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by uwot » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:32 am

Averroes wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:15 pm
...the definition of science that I used is that of mainstream science as attested by the common English dictionaries and the practicing scientists themselves! Even Darwin accepted the mainstream definition of science that I used!!! And even Darwin found that his theory was not scientific by the mainstream standard of scientific inquiry.
None of which has any bearing on whether Darwin was right.
Averroes wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:15 pm
uwot wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:42 pm
Congratulations, you have provided a definition of science that excludes Darwinism
Thank you for the congratulations, it’s very kind of you. I thank and praise God, the Almighty for the knowledge and guidance that He gives.
Does it not strike you as curious that he only gives knowledge and guidance to people who believe anything that is written in a book?
Averroes wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:15 pm
It has already been shown and also acknowledge by you that Darwinism is excluded from science by the standard mainstream definition of science.
That isn't true. I went to rather a lot of trouble to explain why any "standard mainstream definition of science" that you have found in a dictionary doesn't adequately describe 'science'.
Averroes wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:15 pm
But not only!!! According to your own peculiar definition of science as well Darwinism is excluded! We have already discussed that already. Here is what I had said on that:
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm
You defined science as: a coherent explanation of phenomenal data without appeal to supernatural causes.
That isn't true either.
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm
So if Darwinism is to amount to science in accordance with your own definition, then it must be a coherent explanation of phenomenal data...
And here is what I said in response:
uwot wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
You don't understand the issue. I have already said that I have no idea how life originated. Darwin's theory of evolution does not pretend to explain the origin of life, the title of Darwin's book is On the Origin of Species. If you do not accept that creatures evolve into different species, you are committed to some alternative explanation for the diversity of flora and fauna; for instance that some supernatural being created them all from scratch, but from essentially the same components. It is conceivable, but there is no evidence to support such a claim. You also have to give some alternative explanation for the fossil record. Why are sponges at the bottom and dinosaurs at the top?
What knowledge and guidance does "God, the Almighty" give in regard to the fossil record?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is science being divided?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:46 am

Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pm
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
...experimentation and observation of the natural world is a crucial factor in scientific investigation.
Well yes. If there is nothing to see, what are you investigating?
Please, note that it is only after investigation that one can justifiably conclude that there was nothing to see! As I was saying, science is the experimentation and observation of the natural world. And in the case of Darwinism, after scientific investigation, the scientists concluded that there was "nothing to see" (as you say)! That is why Darwinism was rightly concluded not to be scientific.

uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
You have to make a statement known as a hypothesis. That statement has to be backed and not contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world to then form part of the scientific knowledge.
I see. So Newton's law of universal gravitation is not science, because it is contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world.
Wikipedia has something interesting on that and which, in my judgement, points in the correct direction. Here is it:
  • Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation
Now it is true that Newton's law of gravitation provides an excellent approximation because there is much corroborating empirical evidence even though there are also contradicting empirical evidence. But in the case of the claims of Darwinism, which claims that one species can become another, there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsover to show that one species has become another. If you or someone else can show me that one species was observed to have become another through an experiment or observation of the natural world, then I will accept that it too is a good approximation! But since the time of Darwin, including Darwin himself, no one has ever been able to do that!

___________
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm
But the observation of fossilized remains in the earth strata does not prove that one species became another.
True, but science is not in the business of proof. The fossil record is evidence that supports an hypothesis.
I agree that the fossil record is evidence for the hypothesis that there once lived on earth animals with the structure as suggested by these fossils. But the fossil record is not evidence of Darwinism. Now Darwin himself was in possession of fossil record in his time already. Nonetheless, he himself already understood that the fossil record was not scientific evidence for his speculations.

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:
  • It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:
  • What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:
  • But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml

Moreover many modern biologists have expressed similar views about the fossil record not being evidence of Darwinism. For example Dr Micheal Denton who is a biochemist and geneticist wrote on this in a critical essay on evolution in 2015. He had this to say:

Dr Denton wrote:
  • IN Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Evolution), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates. This is the view that Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson defended in On Growth and Form:
    • In short nature proceeds “from one type to another” [emphasis added] among organic as well as inorganic forms; and these types vary according to their own parameters, and are defined by physical-mathematical conditions of possibility. In natural history Cuvier’s “types” may not be perfectly chosen nor numerous enough but “types” they are; and to seek for stepping stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.
    The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today.

    There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations.

    This was my position in Evolution.

    It remains my position today.
Site: http://inference-review.com/article/evo ... d-part-one
_________
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
These fossilized remains just proved that there once existed such types of species and not that one evolved into another.
Well, by calling fossils, "fossilized remains", you are already making an hypothesis that cannot be supported by evidence. There is no example of a scientist observing the remains of a creature turning into a fossil over 60 million years.
As I already said, the “millions and/or billions of years” of age is pure speculation and utterly unscientific. These are only claims which cannot be backed by any reliable scientific evidence. When I mentioned “fossilized remains”, I never mentioned any date whatsoever. A fossil can be recognized by its actual structural and chemical properties.

__________________
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
Averroes wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:59 pm
For you to be able to use induction to prove Darwinism you must at least observe some species becoming another...
You really need to understand the difference between proof and evidence.
Alright. Let us understand this difference then.

There are in fact different possible interpretations of the relationship between proof and evidence.



1. In law for example, proof is defined as convincing evidence.

From a legal dictionary we can read the following:
  • In law a proof is the conviction or persuasion of the mind of a judge or jury, by the exhibition of evidence, of the reality of a fact alleged: as, to prove, is to determine or persuade that a thing does or does not exist.
Reference:https://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p184.htm

In law proof is merely the subjective appreciation/judgment of the judge or jury who is to be convinced of a given evidence or not. In law, if an evidence or a set of evidence convinces the judge or jury then it amounts to proof. Otherwise it does not amount to proof. So in law, either evidence is proof or evidence is not proof. I call this a binary logical system of evidence. Therefore, in law all proof is evidence but not all evidence is proof.



2. In science, however, no amount of corroborating empirical evidence of a scientific theory can amount to proof of that theory. Popper explains that a scientific theory can never be confirmed by observation, it can only be corroborated, while the possibility of it being falsified in the future remains open. Therefore, all knowledge in science is tentative knowledge. In science no evidence or set thereof is proof. I call this a unary logical system of evidence.



3. There is also a third possibility. This is what I call a probabilistic interpretation of proof and evidence, under a Bayesian interpretation of probability.

From Wikipedia, we can read on Bayesian probability:
  • Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.

    Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated to a posterior probability in the light of new, relevant data (evidence). The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
So in this approach, it can be construed as quantifying over the level/degree of conviction that an evidence or a set of evidence gives. Each evidence is interpreted as convincing to a certain degree. Here instead of the binary concept of proof and evidence as in law, and the unary concept as in science, there is here a multi-ary (or n-ary) concept of proof and evidence. Some evidence will amount to weak proof and others will amount to strong proof.

So, here, we quantify over the level of conviction that a given piece of evidence confers. Let H refer to a hypothesis, and E refer to an evidence or a set of evidence, then P(H/E) is the conviction that one has in hypothesis H given one has evidence E. P(H/E) is a value which ranges between 0 and 1, i.e., 0 ≤ P(H/E) ≤1, where ‘0’ means no conviction at all and ‘1’ means complete conviction. Between these two extremes there are an infinite number of possibilities. The interval [0,1] can also be quantized into n equal levels and thus giving rise to n-ary logic. A binary logical system as in law corresponds to n=2. And a unary logical system as in science corresponds to n=1.

Therefore, under this interpretation all evidence amounts to proof. An evidence which gives a very small value for P(H/E) will be a weak proof and hence the evidence also will be called weak. So, in a nutshell, a weak evidence will correspond to a weak proof and a strong evidence corresponds to a strong proof. Under this interpretation all evidence is proof and all proof is evidence. If an evidence E does not amount to proof (e.g. P(H/E)=0) then it is not evidence for hypothesis H. David Hume and his commentator Lorkowsky vaguely alluded to this possibility in their writings, but of course not anywhere as detailed as the original account that I present here.

It is up to the individual now, whenever he or she has the opportunity to exercise his freedom of conscience to choose one of these possibilities to incorporate in his or her semantics. I would not find it wise if someone were to unwarrantedly impose his/her semantics on me!
_________________
uwot wrote:
Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:36 pm
It would probably help if you could first understand the difference between 'synonymous' and 'means exactly the same as'.
It all depends on one’s philosophy/semantics. If one were to adopt the legal semantics then they would be near synonyms and they would not mean exactly the same. If one were to adopt the scientific semantics, they would not even be synonymous! But on a probabilistic interpretation, they would be exact synonyms.
There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' dickwad. Darwin discovered how evolution worked. You don't go around calling gravity 'Newtonism' do you? Calling it 'Darwinism' is just a religio-fuck ploy to make it sound like some bullshit religious belief system.
Go fuck yourself.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests