|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2002 : 05:10:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
Can an other theory be introduced? Absolutely. I just introduced one that you can't disprove.
You really don't get it, do you? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 08:30:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The premise was: If creation and elvolution couldn't be proven to 100%, couldn't other theories be introduced to give a fresh perspective on the subject.
You are missing the key point of what a theory is. No theory not one (gravity, electromagnetic radiation, light, relativity, evolution, etc.) can be proven 100%. Science is not in the business of proving stuff. Proving something is an exercise of logic and except for mathematics it just cannot be done with the natural world.
For a good discussion I highly recommend this overview on the topic.
http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
You and a few others here are mixing up what is a theory and what is a law. A law is not a "proven" theory. In fact a law is often part of a theory ala gravity. The law of gravity is nothing more than a mathematical formula (an observation that seems to remain constant no matter what). It is a part of the theory of gravity.
In fact a theory never becomes a fact (although it can be proven, but proving something does not equal truth). A theory is an explanation of facts including laws. However you often hear (correctly) that evolution is both a fact and a theory. This means that life changes and this has been observed (new species arise and old species go extinct). This is an observation or a fact that is a part of the theory of evolution. The part that is a theory tries to explain this and other facts. It explains concepts of common ancestors and descent with modification and of course natural selection and other means of change such as genetic drift, etc.
quote:
I just introduced one that you can't disprove.
Then you have a terrible problem. If you can't devise a way to disprove your hypothesis (it is not a theory until you provide substantial evidence to support it) then you have an invalid hypothesis.
In fact you have fallen into the same line of reasoning that "scientific" creationists take. As soon as they propose a hypothesis trying to explain something it is normally debunked or disproven so they include the supernatural element making their hypothesis unfalsifiable and as such unscientific. Evolution does not have this problem/gimmick since all parts of it are entirely falsifiable.
So before you can label your hypothesis a theory you have to do several things:
1. Make it falsifiable otherwise it is worthless in a scientific sense.
2. Look for observations (facts) that support it.
3. Try and find observations that falsify it.
4. If you find observations that falsify it then modify it to fit the observations or discard it entirely. No observation can be conviently ignored (a typical ploy of the creationist)!
5. After accumulating a whole bunch of observations that support it and assuming you have not falsified it entirely produce a logical argument of proof based on the evidence.
6. Produce this "proof/argument" to your scientific peers for evaluation and critique.
If it stands up to the scrutiny of your peers and if more and more evidence is accumulated in its favor then it will become an accepted theory, but almost undoubtedly it will be modified from its original form as more and more attempts to falsify it are found (and it may even become totally rejected at some point).
Until you do this all you have is a story, not a hypothesis nor a theory. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 12/11/2002 08:34:05 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 08:41:18 [Permalink]
|
| Well done, jmcginn! |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 09:25:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
quote:
I just introduced one that you can't disprove.
Then you have a terrible problem. If you can't devise a way to disprove your hypothesis (it is not a theory until you provide substantial evidence to support it) then you have an invalid hypothesis. In fact you have fallen into the same line of reasoning that "scientific" creationists take.
Bingo! |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 16:58:45 [Permalink]
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmm....That was well put jmcginn. This couldn't be just a semantics problem could it? I've heard many different ways the term 'theory' is used. No? damn.
So you want me to downgrade my 'theory' all the way to a story until which time as I can (1) get some evidence (2) and that evidence has to go under the scrutiny of my peers. At which time (3) they will all tell me I'm nucking futs. That seems like a lot of work couldn't I just send a lightning bolt into RD's living room? kidding...i won't
Well maybe I'll go ahead and write up an argument proving my 'story',so I can reclassify it as a theory, and then maybe I can still salvage some of my loyal following. Surprisingly most are from Utah.
Don't take the imagination out of the world or you'll just end up with a pile of rocks.-later |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 19:37:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
So you want me to downgrade my 'theory' all the way to a story until which time as I can (1) get some evidence (2) and that evidence has to go under the scrutiny of my peers. At which time (3) they will all tell me I'm nucking futs.
Amazingly, you still don't get it. It would be funny if it weren't so diagnostic of the sophistry that marks the promotion of every pseudo-scientific absurdity. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 20:35:12 [Permalink]
|
um..... RD read between the lines.....I gave up the thread is over.
Bye |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2002 : 20:41:40 [Permalink]
|
| Nice sentence by the way do you sleep with your thesaurus? |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 05:58:39 [Permalink]
|
Firballn, you just had the scientific method explained to you in one of the clearest and best ways I have ever seen. Your response shows that you didn't understand a word of it.
Give up on the thread if you must, but I strongly advise that you re-read that post and make a real attempt to understand what is being said in it. One way to understand it would be to play out in your mind an experiment or investigation (on anything at all) that followed the steps laid out.
It would help your manifestly poor critical thinking faculties enormously if you did, and save some of the more knowledgeable posters on here a lot of time and effort in the future if you stay around! |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 16:31:48 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, have to join in here, really a clear, concise explaination, jmcginn, well done! And kudos to you, too, Fireballn, for being big enough to acknowledge it. The member's posts can sometimes contain wording that is hippopotamusly confusing at times, but try to give them the benifit of a doubt, they are for the most part, well intentioned. Welcome to the rack er, board, btw... |
 |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 18:54:35 [Permalink]
|
| First of all I completely understood jmcginn's explanation. I also completely agreed with it. I put out this thread to give people a different slant on an old debate. It really wasn't designed to become a viable discussion. I just found myself defending an argument that didn't have any validity.(as I pointed out) So I thought I'd see it through, and find out where the discussion led. I didn't have much to hang on to, but I did for a while. I did see the end of it in jmcginn's last reply and I knew it was over. I just tried to exit as gracefully as possible. I'll be the first to admit I can learn from this board. I might come out with more outlandish possibilities....that's just me. Sometimes I feel reality gets to be a little boring. If that pisses people off, well just let me know. I have learned that preparation and thoroughness are key as any flaw will be examined. I could have come up with something that everyone would agree upon and assimilate seamlessly, but what fun is that? |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Legallee Insane
Skeptic Friend
Canada
126 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 22:26:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
um..... RD read between the lines.....I gave up the thread is over.
Bye
Then why the hell are you still posting absurdities? Either you've given up or your continuing on with this fruitless argument in which you don't even seem to understand your own standpoint. |
--"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god -- The wise says it to the world"
--"I darn you to HECK!" - Catbert
--"Don't worry, we're not laughing at you, we're laughing near you." |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2002 : 06:33:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
First of all I completely understood jmcginn's explanation. I also completely agreed with it. I put out this thread to give people a different slant on an old debate. It really wasn't designed to become a viable discussion. I just found myself defending an argument that didn't have any validity.
While I'm not a big fan of troll-like behavior done even in jest, I am far more concerned that your previous comment leaves open whether or not you do, in fact, understand what is at issue here.
You wrote: "So you want me to downgrade my 'theory' all the way to a story until which time as I can (1) get some evidence (2) and that evidence has to go under the scrutiny of my peers."
The critical distinction between 'theory' and 'story' has little to do with the quantity of evidence or the quantity of scrutiny. It has everything to do with being explanatory, predictive, parsimonious, testable, and falsifiable. What unites Creationism, Intelligent Design, and 'Fireballution' is that none meet the criteria of theory.
Much of the argumentation promoting such things as Creation Science, Intelligent Design, and virtually every other pseudoscience rely on the obfuscation of the terms and methods of science. In my opinion, perpetuating this confusion, even in jest, does a disservice. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/13/2002 06:38:10 |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2002 : 08:01:19 [Permalink]
|
One thing I would say in Fireballn's defence is that critical thinking and the Scienific Method can be hard. It shouldn't be, but because we mis-use and mis-understand so many scientific terms in everyday life, and because we're often not taught these disciplines at school in any depth, the rot sets in early and is hard to shift.
Just as an example, take the distinction between "mass" and "weight" in physical science. Now find out how many non-scientific lay-people actually understand the basic distinction between these two quantities. I'll speculate it won't be that many (perhaps I should do some research, eh?).
Right, you can tear *me* apart now, RD...  
|
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2002 : 08:43:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
Well done, jmcginn!
 Awe gee shucks guys now you are embarrasing me
but seriously as a young (or not so young) aspiring scientists I have become quite evangilical  with my explanations of the scientific method and I am glad that you guys see that as a good one. I will have to remember that when I reach my goal of being a professor as a good teaching tool  It seems to have out performed some of my previous attempts.
I think part of the problem is that Fireballn came here to try a game or a mental exercise not so much propose a serious argument against science or evolution. And that is fine since such mental exercises can be quite educational and thought provoking for all involved. The only problem is that he didn't say so upfront so allot of people took it as a "serious" argument and got riled up. However on the flip side if he had stated up front this was just a mental exercise / game then he probably wouldn't have got 1/2 as many responses as he got.
So everall I would have to say this thread was enjoyable and educational at least allot more enjoyable then arguming with your typical creationists that has abandoned all resemblances of scientific/critical thought. Even better we didn't have to go digging up hundreds of facts related to evolution to only have them ignored. A most refreshing change  |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
