Born again twit. Why don't you find some god-bothering site to post your 'answersingenesis' science-denying crap on? It's just a huge bore now.Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:39 pmOk.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:24 pm A good muslim/christian/whatever would simply admit it and move on.
I previously wrote: Proof and evidence are synonymous. And vegetariantaxidermy disagreed with me. So the following statements are now being made by myself:
1. According to the gut feeling of poster vegetariantaxidermy who is not a linguist, I am wrong for saying that proof is synonymous with evidence.
2. According to the expertise of the English language scholars of the Oxford dictionaries and the Thesaurus, I am correct for saying that proof and evidence are synonymous.
References: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof
I am a good Muslim now and we can all move on.
Is science being divided?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Is science being divided?
Re: Is science being divided?
The 'you' is a theory related to the data.Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:40 pmOk. So you say this: “The data I have that relates to ‘you’ IS my experience of ‘you’”. So if the data that you have is to relate to your experience of this “you” (i.e. me), then this ‘you’ (i.e. me) has to be independent of this data for you, otherwise there would be no relation between them. In other words this ‘you’ is not the data, but is related to the data. Correct?
Re: Is science being divided?
As I said previously, it is not merely a discussion about the English language particularly, but it is more broadly a philosophical discussion about language in general. Of course I understood already what you and others were saying. But you are not getting what I am saying. Here I could have said: “This is what happens when someone does not understand the subtleties of a philosophical discussion.”vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:01 am This is what happens when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of English (and the example in question isn't even particularly subtle or difficult).
Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof.
Ludwig Wittgenstein said in Philosophical Investigation that “the meaning of a word is its use in the language.” So for the same word, different people might use a word differently. Who is right then? Are you going to label everyone who does not share your meaning of an English word as an idiot or stupid? This kind of bigoted attitude is not useful in philosophy. Moreover, it is a very counter productive attitude to have in the English speaking world itself because there many kinds of English: American, British, Australian etc… And for each of those broad classes there are differences in pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary and grammar. So what are you going to do when hundreds of millions of people do not share your meaning of a word? Are you going to label them all as stupid? This is not wise at all. In philosophy instead of ad hominens, philosophers reply with a logical argument. The latter has a more effective and lasting effect than an ad hominen. For example you made the following statement:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
- Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof
Hume wrote:
- But in order to encrease the probability against the testimony of witnesses, let us suppose, that the fact, which they affirm, instead of being only marvellous, is really miraculous; and suppose also, that the testimony, considered apart and in itself, amounts to an entire proof; in that case, there is proof against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but still with a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its antagonist. [An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Part 1, 10.11]
C. M. Lorkowsky:
- However, there are stronger and weaker proofs—consider a professor showing up for class every day versus the sun rising every day—and only the strongest proofs, those supporting our beliefs in the laws of nature, have been attested to “in all countries and all ages.”
What are you going to do now? Are you going to say that Hume was an idiot or stupid? Well, for other reasons there might be some truth in that, it is up to you!
Re: Is science being divided?
Alright. I understand. We have been exchanging for about four days now and it is normal to feel saturated. Philosophy is an intellectually demanding subject. Let us conclude this exchange here. It was interesting to have exchanged with you. I thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
Re: Is science being divided?
Alright. As you said previously, the ‘you’ (i.e. me) is the best hypothesis which explains the data. One more question: can the relation between this posited ‘you’ and the data be of a causal nature, i.e. do you think that this ‘you’ is the cause of the data at your disposal?
Re: Is science being divided?
If "experience and observation of the natural world is the deciding factor", then any experience and observation becomes 'science', and any 'method' is irrelevant.
You can look at rock strata yourself. In some layers you will find fossils of sponges. Above that are trilobites. Above that are dinosaurs. You can go and do that elsewhere on the planet and find the same pattern. You can infer that you would find the same pattern wherever you go; that is induction.Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pmIn the inductive model the hypothesis is induced from experience and in the falsification model a hypothesis is first issued and then tested against experience for refutation or corroboration. And Darwinism fits in neither of these models because in the case of the inductive model there is no experience from which Darwinism can be induced...
If you can find dinosaurs at the bottom and sponges at the top, job done.
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?
Re: Is science being divided?
Causality has got nothing to do with it.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:57 pmAlright. As you said previously, the ‘you’ (i.e. me) is the best hypothesis which explains the data. One more question: can the relation between this posited ‘you’ and the data be of a causal nature, i.e. do you think that this ‘you’ is the cause of the data at your disposal?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Is science being divided?
Perhaps you should define 'philosophy' then because I haven't seen any actual 'thinking' from you--only smarminess and proselytising.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:56 pmAlright. I understand. We have been exchanging for about four days now and it is normal to feel saturated. Philosophy is an intellectually demanding subject. Let us conclude this exchange here. It was interesting to have exchanged with you. I thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Is science being divided?
Why would I care what Hume says about it? And I don't know who the hell C M Lorkowsky is. He sounds like an idiot (probably American). Are you completely unable to think for yourself?Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:55 pmAs I said previously, it is not merely a discussion about the English language particularly, but it is more broadly a philosophical discussion about language in general. Of course I understood already what you and others were saying. But you are not getting what I am saying. Here I could have said: “This is what happens when someone does not understand the subtleties of a philosophical discussion.”vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:01 am This is what happens when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of English (and the example in question isn't even particularly subtle or difficult).
Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof.
Ludwig Wittgenstein said in Philosophical Investigation that “the meaning of a word is its use in the language.” So for the same word, different people might use a word differently. Who is right then? Are you going to label everyone who does not share your meaning of an English word as an idiot or stupid? This kind of bigoted attitude is not useful in philosophy. Moreover, it is a very counter productive attitude to have in the English speaking world itself because there many kinds of English: American, British, Australian etc… And for each of those broad classes there are differences in pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary and grammar. So what are you going to do when hundreds of millions of people do not share your meaning of a word? Are you going to label them all as stupid? This is not wise at all. In philosophy instead of ad hominens, philosophers reply with a logical argument. The latter has a more effective and lasting effect than an ad hominen. For example you made the following statement:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That statement captures the meaning that you attach to the word “proof.” It is your understanding of this word. It is fine as long as you can make yourself understood in your community. But not everyone need to have that same definition for the word “proof.” For example, you said: “You can’t have ‘weak proof’, or ‘strong/compelling proof’”. Many people would disagree with you. For example David Hume would disagree with you! In an Inquiry concerning Human understanding he wrote:
- Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof
Hume wrote:Here clearly Hume was considering that one proof can be stronger than another. Moreover, on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a philosophy professor commenting on this passage of Hume endorses unambiguously that there are weaker and stronger proofs, going directly against your definition.
- But in order to encrease the probability against the testimony of witnesses, let us suppose, that the fact, which they affirm, instead of being only marvellous, is really miraculous; and suppose also, that the testimony, considered apart and in itself, amounts to an entire proof; in that case, there is proof against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but still with a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its antagonist. [An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Part 1, 10.11]
C. M. Lorkowsky:https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-rel/
- However, there are stronger and weaker proofs—consider a professor showing up for class every day versus the sun rising every day—and only the strongest proofs, those supporting our beliefs in the laws of nature, have been attested to “in all countries and all ages.”
What are you going to do now? Are you going to say that Hume was an idiot or stupid? Well, for other reasons there might be some truth in that, it is up to you!
You can't just change the meaning of a word to suit yourself. What word are you going to replace it with? You are obviously a very petty little man who can't stand to admit when he's wrong--not the intellectual giant you seem to imagine yourself to be
Re: Is science being divided?
Indeed, experimentation and observation of the natural world is a crucial factor in scientific investigation. 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. Suppose we have the hypothesis: the speed of light is 300 000 000m/s. We are going to take as observations the actual measurements of the speed of light. We are not going to admit as observation the measurement of the speed of a car on the highway. The latter would be irrelevant to our hypothesis. Proposition of science are often universal propositions. But singular statements too can be scientific. For example, when we are testing a hypothesis, often we make several individual observations and each observation is often called a scientific measurement/data.
But the observation of fossilized remains in the earth strata does not prove that one species became another. These fossilized remains just proved that there once existed such types of species and not that one evolved into another. For you to be able to use induction to prove Darwinism you must at least observe some species becoming another, and then from these observations you might induce the claims of Darwinism, but it has never been observed that one species became another. So you cannot claim induction for Darwinism from fossilized remains. Let me give the famous example for how induction works. Suppose all swans that you have ever seen were white, and of no other color. From these observations you might induce the statement: All swans are white, In induction one generalizes over the observations made and not over observations not made.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pmYou can look at rock strata yourself. In some layers you will find fossils of sponges. Above that are trilobites. Above that are dinosaurs. You can go and do that elsewhere on the planet and find the same pattern. You can infer that you would find the same pattern wherever you go; that is induction.Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pmIn the inductive model the hypothesis is induced from experience and in the falsification model a hypothesis is first issued and then tested against experience for refutation or corroboration. And Darwinism fits in neither of these models because in the case of the inductive model there is no experience from which Darwinism can be induced...
It does not work like that. Popper’s falsification method is a bit more elaborate. In a nutshell, as far as I can remember, under Popper’s method, for a hypothesis to amount to be called scientific, it has to fulfill four conditions: being synthetic, consistent, testable and another one that I forgot. Popper said of Darwinism that it is tautological, i.e. it says: “the survivor survives.” (his own example). So Darwinism under Popper is not even a scientific theory. But in any case, even if it were synthetic and not tautological, you would still have to design experiments to show one species becoming another. And so far all experiments conducted with fruit flies and bacteria to prove Darwinism have failed, No species were ever observed to have become another. What happened in fact is that when conditions got too harsh, the species just died and did not evolved.
From these replies that you have given, I have a strong impression that you did not practice the scientific method much before because this is very basic knowledge in science. Anyway, I hope you understand these basic principles I have explained.
What matters in science is the empirical observations that corroborates a scientific hypothesis. If someone were to produce empirical evidence of one species becoming another, then I will have no choice but to accept it. But of course someone has the right to believe that one species can become another but that belief is not scientific according to the widely accepted definition of the word scientific.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm 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.
Respectfully, why must I give an explanation for the fossil record when you cannot give an explanation for how life originated? Why this double standards?
As I said already, as long as you cannot explain how life originated in your conceptual scientific framework, Darwinism will remain an incoherent theory, and hence not science according to your own definition of that term. I can go through that again if need be and explain it in more detail if you still have trouble understanding what was previously written on that.
Re: Is science being divided?
Thank you for this information. So this 'you' is just a concept which you have abstracted from the data?A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:39 pmCausality has got nothing to do with it.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:57 pmAlright. As you said previously, the ‘you’ (i.e. me) is the best hypothesis which explains the data. One more question: can the relation between this posited ‘you’ and the data be of a causal nature, i.e. do you think that this ‘you’ is the cause of the data at your disposal?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Is science being divided?
The fool is confusing Darwinism with the origin of life. What a surprise. At least he has shown us that Australians are nearly as stupid as Americans (and rapidly catching up).
Re: Is science being divided?
Yes and I am not answering any more questions. You were supposed to be telling me your theory for how you came to exist ...Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:05 pmThank you for this information. So this 'you' is just a concept which you have abstracted from the data?A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:39 pmCausality has got nothing to do with it.Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:57 pm
Alright. As you said previously, the ‘you’ (i.e. me) is the best hypothesis which explains the data. One more question: can the relation between this posited ‘you’ and the data be of a causal nature, i.e. do you think that this ‘you’ is the cause of the data at your disposal?