Not worth sticking your head in the oven over this.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:46 amThere 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.Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:09 pmPlease, 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.
Wikipedia has something interesting on that and which, in my judgement, points in the correct direction. Here is it:
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!
- Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications.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
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:
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml
- 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:
Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml
- 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:
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml
- 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.
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:
Site: http://inference-review.com/article/evo ... d-part-one
- 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:
The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today.
- 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.
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.
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.
__________________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.
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:
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.
- 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, 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!
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.
Go fuck yourself.