| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Conspiracy of Doves" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2006 11:57:25 AM |
| Object: |
Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
------------------------------------------------------
Top Ten Myths About Evolution
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin -
Green Bay
A Note to Visitors
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you
want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to
answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this
question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a
theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a
great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine
whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just
playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of
proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing.
It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you
open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
1. Humans Evolved From Monkeys
Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago
Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago.
Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will
you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess" "Theory"
means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of
previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible
explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A
theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but
incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All
hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
* Number Theory is the branch of mathematics that deals with the
properties of numbers. Theories don't get much more proven than this.
* Quantum Theory is the theory that describes how and why atomic
particles behave as they do. It has allowed us to build computers and
lasers. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
* Stress Theory is what engineers use to build buildings, bridges,
and keep the wings on airplanes. It works.
* Music Theory illustrates another use of the word "theory," to
mean the underlying principles of a subject as opposed to actual
practice. Music Theory is the set of accepted conventions used in
European music. Other conventions are possible. That's why Asian music
sounds so different from ours.
* The Phlogiston Theory was the notion that heat was a substance
that reacted with materials to explain combustion. It's wrong. But it's
still a theory. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether the
ideas in question are right or wrong.
3. If Nobody Saw It, We Can't Be Sure It Happened
If you find your house trashed and your TV and stereo missing, will you
hesitate to call the police because nobody saw it happen? Would you
want the judge to dismiss the case just because you only had forensic
evidence, but no witnesses?
4. Science Can't Say Anything About Origins
Maybe not. But once the origin happens, everything after that is
history. And historical evidence is preserved in the physical record.
5. Obsolete Concepts
Critics of evolution are fond of citing Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man
(actually the tooth of a fossil pig erroneously claimed to be human).
These both happened about 100 years ago. They can't cite any cases of
false claims of ancient human fossils since then.
"Survival of the Fittest" was borrowed by Darwin from the economic
writings of Herbert Spencer. What does "fittest" mean? It's not
just a tautology, like saying "the winner of the Super Bowl is the team
with the most points." There are objective features that make some
creatures fitter than others. If you need to move fast in the water,
there is one shape that works best and it's shared by squid, sharks,
tuna, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and nuclear submarines.
6. There Are No Intermediate Fossil Forms
This is a claim for which there is a monosyllabic definition: lie. Not
error, which implies honest ignorance, but lie, because the people who
make this claim are generally fully aware of the fossil record and
simply choose to misrepresent it. Archaeopteryx, the earliest known
fossil bird for a long time (some recent finds may be earlier) has a
thoroughly reptilian skeleton with a bony tail, teeth, and four paws
with jointed fingers (not merely the horny skin growths at the middle
joint that a few modern birds have). And it has feathers. If that's not
an intermediate, what is? More recently, evidence is accumulating that
some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. If we'd lived 100 million years
ago, we might have put birds, mammals and reptiles in the same class or
at least put the divisions very differently from today. Therapsids are
the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, crossopterygians and
ichthyostegids are the intermediates between fish and amphibians, and
so on.
7. Evolution Is Not Testable
Darwin suggested birds had evolved from reptiles in 1859;
Archaeopteryx, a creature with a reptilian skeleton but feathers, was
discovered in 1862.
Piltdown Man, the famous early fossil man hoax, actually vindicated
evolution. The alleged fossil was controversial from the start
precisely because it didn't match evolutionary expectations. It had a
modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who
knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts.
It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car
and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man
was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be
genuine. It just didn't match the other finds.
8. Evolution Means Humans are Just Animals
Are you a vegetable or mineral? Humans have hair and nurse their young
just like all other mammals. Traits like nurturing, cooperation and
monogamy are often favored by evolution because they enhance survival
of the species.
9. Evolution is Just Random
Is the following number sequence random: 592653589793238462643383279?
It not only looks random: it is random. But lacking in meaning? No.
These are the digits of pi beginning with the fourth decimal place.
Random does not mean "meaningless." The scientific meaning of
random is that something cannot be predicted with better accuracy than
that predicted by statistics. The phenomenon is its own simplest
description. Biological systems are far too complex to describe or
predict mathematically. We have incomplete information, and significant
events like climate change or asteroid impact are unpredictable.
10. Complexity Cannot Arise Naturally
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often paraphrased as:
* "Things always go from bad to worse"
* "Disorder in the Universe is always increasing"
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about entropy, which is defined as
(Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature Entropy can decrease locally
if it increases elsewhere. Intuitive notions of "disorder" are of
no relevance whatsoever. Any discussion of the Second Law that does not
specifically define entropy and show how it relates to evolution is
worthless.
Chemical reactions are not random. For example, the atoms in a crystal
of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in
a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded
approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or
chlorine atom in each spot, the chance of getting 100 atoms arranged as
below is (1/2)100 or one in 1.26 x 1030. That's roughly one followed by
30 zeros. According to this reasoning, table salt is impossible.
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
But of course the reasoning is ridiculous. The chances of getting that
arrangement of atoms is close to 100 per cent.
And we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so
every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The
missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell
fluids.
"But when cells divide, there's a pattern already available" say some
anti-evolutionists. Try this: go to the lumber yard and buy the
materials for a tool shed. Then put a set of plans on top of the pile,
and let me know when the materials spontaneously assemble. I can pour
gasoline onto a garbage pile and the molecules in the garbage won't
suddenly get the urge to develop into gasoline, even though there's
enough carbon and hydrogen to do it. The pattern means nothing. DNA
replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble.
Created 21 January, 2003, Last Update 23 February, 2006
.
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
07 Jun 2006 07:04:47 PM |
|
|
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1149699445.713127.201790@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Top Ten Myths About Evolution
There's only ONE myth about evolution, and it's the religious *****'s
claim that it doesn't happen.
--
Doc Smartass
"I am George W. Fudd, Miwwionaire. I own a mansion, a yacht, and your phone
number."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
08 Jun 2006 01:23:39 AM |
|
|
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149699445.713127.201790@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
------------------------------------------------------
Top Ten Myths About Evolution
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin -
Green Bay
A Note to Visitors
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you
want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to
answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this
question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a
theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a
great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine
whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just
playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of
proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing.
It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you
open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
[snip]
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess" "Theory"
means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of
previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible
explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A
theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but
incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All
hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
I'm afraid this is not correct. The scientific method has four steps.
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step two is theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
Step three is hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon
a theory.
Step four is experiment. An experiment directly tests an hypothesis. The
result is more data, which returns us to step one.
As you can see, in science, a theory and an hypothesis are different things.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
08 Jun 2006 07:19:20 AM |
|
|
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149699445.713127.201790@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
------------------------------------------------------
Top Ten Myths About Evolution
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin -
Green Bay
A Note to Visitors
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you
want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to
answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this
question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a
theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a
great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine
whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just
playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of
proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing.
It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you
open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
[snip]
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess" "Theory"
means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of
previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible
explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A
theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but
incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All
hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
I'm afraid this is not correct. The scientific method has four steps.
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step two is theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
Step three is hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon
a theory.
Step four is experiment. An experiment directly tests an hypothesis. The
result is more data, which returns us to step one.
As you can see, in science, a theory and an hypothesis are different things.
[snip]
Science doesn't work this way, and you may be confusing terms. You are
also mistaken if you think that there is only one way to do science.
In your above example your "theory" in step two would be considered an
untested hypothesis or even assertion. Scientific theories are
considered to be well tested explanations of the body of scientific
evidence. Testing your notions takes many forms and there should be a
broad definition of what you call an "experiment" in step 4.
Once theories have been established they are constantly tested by what
you can infer from them given new data or review of the old data. They
also help form new questions to ask about nature. Answering these new
questions takes the form of hypothesis testing.
Quite a bit of science gets done bassackwards. Something strikes a
scientist's fancy and he has to figure out a way to get to the answers
that he needs to determine if he is onto something or not. Science
isn't pure and pristine, it only depends on the bottom line, how did
you validate your conclusions and is your validation good enough to
convince others that you are onto something.
Intelligent Design started bassackwards, but it never got around to the
validation part, so it never got to the stage where it could be
evaluated by science.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
08 Jun 2006 11:22:12 PM |
|
|
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149769160.824192.230050@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149699445.713127.201790@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
------------------------------------------------------
Top Ten Myths About Evolution
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin -
Green Bay
A Note to Visitors
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you
want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to
answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this
question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a
theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a
great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine
whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just
playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of
proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing.
It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you
open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
[snip]
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess" "Theory"
means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of
previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible
explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A
theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but
incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All
hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
I'm afraid this is not correct. The scientific method has four steps.
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and
experimentation.
Step two is theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
Step three is hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction based
upon
a theory.
Step four is experiment. An experiment directly tests an hypothesis.
The
result is more data, which returns us to step one.
As you can see, in science, a theory and an hypothesis are different
things.
[snip]
Science doesn't work this way, and you may be confusing terms.
I suspect that confusion of terms is what has caused the misconception that
theories start out as hypotheses. Before this use of the term "hypothesis"
was inserted into the scientific method, the four steps were data, theory,
prediction, and experiment. Unfortunately, some not so scientific minded
people made some general predictions that turned out to be right. They then
claimed that this supported the theories they were promoting. So the term
"hypothesis" was inserted to replace "prediction", with hypothesis defined
as a specific prediction based upon a theory.
Also unfortunately, most scientists are not required to take a philosophy of
science course for their degree. Seeing the term "hypothesis" in the
scientific method, they assumed there was an error. Using the common
definition of "hypothesis" - a tentative assertion - it made more sense to
list the four steps of the scientific method as either data, hypothesis,
theory, experiment, or data, hypothesis, experiment, theory. Since these
same scientists are the ones who write the textbooks, this misconception has
persisted.
You are
also mistaken if you think that there is only one way to do science.
In your above example your "theory" in step two would be considered an
untested hypothesis or even assertion. Scientific theories are
considered to be well tested explanations of the body of scientific
evidence.
Using your description of the scientific method raises a number of
questions. If a scientific theory starts out as a hypothesis (common
definition), then why have I never heard of the hypothesis of evolution?
Why have I never heard of gravitational hypothesis, or electromagnetic
hypothesis, or the special hypothesis of relativity? Why don't scientists
attending science conferences gather to decide which hypotheses should
become theories? Why don't we see letters to science journals urging that a
particular hypothesis should become a theory? It seems that scientists
don't follow the method that you describe.
Also, how much testing is required for a hypothesis to be considered "well
tested"? Ten tests? A hundred? A whole lot? How much anomalous data is
allowed? None? Ten results? Ten percent? What happens if a hypothesis
becomes a theory, and then additional data is produced that conflicts with
the theory? Does the theory go back to being a hypothesis? And who
decides? You? Me? President Bush? The really smart guy you met on the
bus this morning? And who decides who decides?
All of these questions need to be answered if hypotheses turn into theories.
And all of these questions go away if we use the steps and the sequence that
I provided (which, BTW, are not mine). A theory is a theory is a theory.
The only thing that makes any theory any better or worse than any other
theory, is the support it receives from the evidence.
Testing your notions takes many forms and there should be a
broad definition of what you call an "experiment" in step 4.
Obviously, my discussion of the scientific method was incomplete. The
experiment in step four tests the hypothesis proposed in step three.
However, there is no reason the method can't be interrupted at any time to
accommodate new data. This data could be the result of simple observations,
or it could be the result of experiments proposed for the sole purpose of
just seeing what happens. The scientific method is a tool, not a strict
requirement for carrying out an investigation.
Once theories have been established they are constantly tested
I thought they were already tested? Are you now telling me they aren't
sufficiently tested? How is this testing different from the testing when
you thought the theory was a hypothesis?
by what
you can infer from them given new data or review of the old data.
In the method I described, these inferences are called hypotheses.
They
also help form new questions to ask about nature. Answering these new
questions takes the form of hypothesis testing.
Quite a bit of science gets done bassackwards. Something strikes a
scientist's fancy and he has to figure out a way to get to the answers
that he needs to determine if he is onto something or not. Science
isn't pure and pristine, it only depends on the bottom line, how did
you validate your conclusions and is your validation good enough to
convince others that you are onto something.
One of the advantages of the method that I described, is that it resolves
the conflict between inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning
is used to form theories; deductive reasoning is used to form hypotheses.
To form a theory, a scientist must look at a set of data and try to identify
patterns that will lead to an explanation. Sometimes producing a theory
requires a certain amount of inspiration.
The scientific method is not an all-encompassing description of what
scientists do. It is a tool used by scientists like publication is a tool
and peer review is a tool. The scientific method can be used anywhere at
any time by anyone at any stage of an investigation. If you have a set of
data, you can use the scientific method. It doesn't matter if you have a
little data or a lot of data or new data or old data or incomplete data, all
you need is data and you can apply the scientific method.
Intelligent Design started bassackwards, but it never got around to the
validation part, so it never got to the stage where it could be
evaluated by science.
The creationist scientific method would have only two steps. Step one would
be their theory, and step two would be the evaluation of the data with
respect to the theory. Any data that doesn't fit the theory is modified or
rejected. Of course, ID doesn't actually have a theory, but that doesn't
stop them from evaluating the evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
09 Jun 2006 07:29:26 PM |
|
|
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149769160.824192.230050@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149699445.713127.201790@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
------------------------------------------------------
Top Ten Myths About Evolution
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin -
Green Bay
A Note to Visitors
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you
want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to
answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this
question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a
theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a
great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine
whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just
playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of
proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing.
It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you
open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
[snip]
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess" "Theory"
means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of
previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible
explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A
theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but
incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All
hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
I'm afraid this is not correct. The scientific method has four steps.
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and
experimentation.
Step two is theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
Step three is hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction based
upon
a theory.
Step four is experiment. An experiment directly tests an hypothesis.
The
result is more data, which returns us to step one.
As you can see, in science, a theory and an hypothesis are different
things.
[snip]
Science doesn't work this way, and you may be confusing terms.
I suspect that confusion of terms is what has caused the misconception that
theories start out as hypotheses. Before this use of the term "hypothesis"
was inserted into the scientific method, the four steps were data, theory,
prediction, and experiment. Unfortunately, some not so scientific minded
people made some general predictions that turned out to be right. They then
claimed that this supported the theories they were promoting. So the term
"hypothesis" was inserted to replace "prediction", with hypothesis defined
as a specific prediction based upon a theory.
What misconception? A lot of what are considered scientific theories
started out as speculation. Can you possibly deny this?
Scientists are pretty lose in their use of theory. They use it like
Uncle Joe's theory of how the harvest affects the outcome of the
Superbowl and they use it as a term to distinguish the highest level a
scientific notion can achieve. If you are going to talk about modern
science you should separate hypothesis from scientific theory.
Also unfortunately, most scientists are not required to take a philosophy of
science course for their degree. Seeing the term "hypothesis" in the
scientific method, they assumed there was an error. Using the common
definition of "hypothesis" - a tentative assertion - it made more sense to
list the four steps of the scientific method as either data, hypothesis,
theory, experiment, or data, hypothesis, experiment, theory. Since these
same scientists are the ones who write the textbooks, this misconception has
persisted.
Actually philosophy is pretty much bullpucky in terms of science.
Philosophers on this group not withstanding, if you can't do science
without knowing a lick of philosophy you aren't worth anything in
science. One accurate test is probably worth a thousand philosophers
to science. If you need a philosopher to tell you about logical
fallacies you aren't a very good scientist. You might not know the
official names of them, but if you use them, you have no one else to
blame but yourself when you don't get anywhere. You can talk about
science, but that isn't the same as doing it, and actually
accomplishing something. This isn't a cut against philosophers, it is
just a fact of science. They might call it a doctor of philosophy, but
the philosophy part pretty much ended with what can be called
experimental design, and scientists were required to do more than talk.
That may sound harsh, but it is true. No one denies that you should
be aware of your assumptions and junk like that, but if you try to use
philosophy to defend your view of science you better be prepared for
dissappointment. Science is essentially what scientists do to learn
more about nature. They can have the nuttiest means of coming up with
something, but if they can't verify it and demonstrate that they can
make those claims it isn't science.
You are
also mistaken if you think that there is only one way to do science.
In your above example your "theory" in step two would be considered an
untested hypothesis or even assertion. Scientific theories are
considered to be well tested explanations of the body of scientific
evidence.
Using your description of the scientific method raises a number of
questions. If a scientific theory starts out as a hypothesis (common
definition), then why have I never heard of the hypothesis of evolution?
Why have I never heard of gravitational hypothesis, or electromagnetic
hypothesis, or the special hypothesis of relativity? Why don't scientists
attending science conferences gather to decide which hypotheses should
become theories? Why don't we see letters to science journals urging that a
particular hypothesis should become a theory? It seems that scientists
don't follow the method that you describe.
Because the modern terminology wasn't used when the theory was
developed over a hundred years ago, and biological evolution hasn't
been a hypothesis for a very long time?
Even though people call it string theory it isn't a scientific theory
and the guys that are working on it know why. Who knows when string
theory will become what is considered a scientific theory like
biological evolution? Who claims that all hypotheses will become what
science calls theories? There would be thousands of theories if every
verified hypothesis became a theory. The answer to your question is
that there is no such question. A large part of science is
verification and testing. How do you think that, that gets done?
Every little test isn't that big of a deal.
Also, how much testing is required for a hypothesis to be considered "well
tested"? Ten tests? A hundred? A whole lot? How much anomalous data is
allowed? None? Ten results? Ten percent? What happens if a hypothesis
becomes a theory, and then additional data is produced that conflicts with
the theory? Does the theory go back to being a hypothesis? And who
decides? You? Me? President Bush? The really smart guy you met on the
bus this morning? And who decides who decides?
You really don't know how science works do you? It is called
consensus, and it takes quite a bit of testing before something is
widely accepted. Until that time it may be provisionally accepted, but
nothing gets written in stone. No matter what Bush or any one single
person claims.
All of these questions need to be answered if hypotheses turn into theories.
And all of these questions go away if we use the steps and the sequence that
I provided (which, BTW, are not mine). A theory is a theory is a theory.
The only thing that makes any theory any better or worse than any other
theory, is the support it receives from the evidence.
Not all hypotheses turn into scientific theories. That is a given that
even you should accept, but theories have to start out as something, so
what is that something?
Testing your notions takes many forms and there should be a
broad definition of what you call an "experiment" in step 4.
Obviously, my discussion of the scientific method was incomplete. The
experiment in step four tests the hypothesis proposed in step three.
However, there is no reason the method can't be interrupted at any time to
accommodate new data. This data could be the result of simple observations,
or it could be the result of experiments proposed for the sole purpose of
just seeing what happens. The scientific method is a tool, not a strict
requirement for carrying out an investigation.
Good, so what is your beef?
Once theories have been established they are constantly tested
I thought they were already tested? Are you now telling me they aren't
sufficiently tested? How is this testing different from the testing when
you thought the theory was a hypothesis?
Ignorance of science or just faned stupidity to make some stupid point?
If you knew anything about science you would know that it has never
been finished.
by what
you can infer from them given new data or review of the old data.
In the method I described, these inferences are called hypotheses.
They
also help form new questions to ask about nature. Answering these new
questions takes the form of hypothesis testing.
Quite a bit of science gets done bassackwards. Something strikes a
scientist's fancy and he has to figure out a way to get to the answers
that he needs to determine if he is onto something or not. Science
isn't pure and pristine, it only depends on the bottom line, how did
you validate your conclusions and is your validation good enough to
convince others that you are onto something.
One of the advantages of the method that I described, is that it resolves
the conflict between inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning
is used to form theories; deductive reasoning is used to form hypotheses.
To form a theory, a scientist must look at a set of data and try to identify
patterns that will lead to an explanation. Sometimes producing a theory
requires a certain amount of inspiration.
No one cares about inductive or deductive reasoning. What matters are
the results and how you can demonstrate your verifications.
The scientific method is not an all-encompassing description of what
scientists do. It is a tool used by scientists like publication is a tool
and peer review is a tool. The scientific method can be used anywhere at
any time by anyone at any stage of an investigation. If you have a set of
data, you can use the scientific method. It doesn't matter if you have a
little data or a lot of data or new data or old data or incomplete data, all
you need is data and you can apply the scientific method.
I thought that you just admitted that your scientific method was
incomplete. There isn't one scientific method. You have to deal with
reality, not some pie in the sky philosophical nonsense.
Intelligent Design started bassackwards, but it never got around to the
validation part, so it never got to the stage where it could be
evaluated by science.
The creationist scientific method would have only two steps. Step one would
be their theory, and step two would be the evaluation of the data with
respect to the theory. Any data that doesn't fit the theory is modified or
rejected. Of course, ID doesn't actually have a theory, but that doesn't
stop them from evaluating the evidence.
It doesn't matter what the creationist scientific method is. What
matters is that it never amounts to anything.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
09 Jun 2006 10:47:50 PM |
|
|
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149899366.894981.199030@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149769160.824192.230050@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149699445.713127.201790@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
------------------------------------------------------
Top Ten Myths About Evolution
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of
Wisconsin -
Green Bay
A Note to Visitors
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if
you
want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first
have to
answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this
question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of
whether a
theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a
great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine
whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or
just
playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the
burden of
proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for
testing.
It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you
open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
[snip]
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess" "Theory"
means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of
previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a
possible
explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a
theory. A
theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly
but
incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing.
All
hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
I'm afraid this is not correct. The scientific method has four
steps.
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and
experimentation.
Step two is theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
Step three is hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction
based
upon
a theory.
Step four is experiment. An experiment directly tests an
hypothesis.
The
result is more data, which returns us to step one.
As you can see, in science, a theory and an hypothesis are different
things.
[snip]
Science doesn't work this way, and you may be confusing terms.
I suspect that confusion of terms is what has caused the misconception
that
theories start out as hypotheses. Before this use of the term
"hypothesis"
was inserted into the scientific method, the four steps were data,
theory,
prediction, and experiment. Unfortunately, some not so scientific
minded
people made some general predictions that turned out to be right. They
then
claimed that this supported the theories they were promoting. So the
term
"hypothesis" was inserted to replace "prediction", with hypothesis
defined
as a specific prediction based upon a theory.
What misconception? A lot of what are considered scientific theories
started out as speculation. Can you possibly deny this?
Yes, some theories start out as speculation, but they are still called
theories. Why do we need to call them anything different?
Scientists are pretty lose in their use of theory. They use it like
Uncle Joe's theory of how the harvest affects the outcome of the
Superbowl and they use it as a term to distinguish the highest level a
scientific notion can achieve. If you are going to talk about modern
science you should separate hypothesis from scientific theory.
I have separated theory from hypothesis. In the scientific method, they are
different things. A theory is an explanation for a set of data. A theory
is a theory from the moment it is proposed until....whenever. An hypothesis
is a specific prediction based upon a theory. If you have difficulty with
this definition of "hypothesis", then just replace it in the scientific
method with "a specific prediction based upon a theory".
Also unfortunately, most scientists are not required to take a
philosophy of
science course for their degree. Seeing the term "hypothesis" in the
scientific method, they assumed there was an error. Using the common
definition of "hypothesis" - a tentative assertion - it made more sense
to
list the four steps of the scientific method as either data, hypothesis,
theory, experiment, or data, hypothesis, experiment, theory. Since
these
same scientists are the ones who write the textbooks, this misconception
has
persisted.
Actually philosophy is pretty much bullpucky in terms of science.
Philosophers on this group not withstanding, if you can't do science
without knowing a lick of philosophy you aren't worth anything in
science. One accurate test is probably worth a thousand philosophers
to science. If you need a philosopher to tell you about logical
fallacies you aren't a very good scientist. You might not know the
official names of them, but if you use them, you have no one else to
blame but yourself when you don't get anywhere. You can talk about
science, but that isn't the same as doing it, and actually
accomplishing something. This isn't a cut against philosophers, it is
just a fact of science. They might call it a doctor of philosophy, but
the philosophy part pretty much ended with what can be called
experimental design, and scientists were required to do more than talk.
That may sound harsh, but it is true. No one denies that you should
be aware of your assumptions and junk like that, but if you try to use
philosophy to defend your view of science you better be prepared for
dissappointment. Science is essentially what scientists do to learn
more about nature. They can have the nuttiest means of coming up with
something, but if they can't verify it and demonstrate that they can
make those claims it isn't science.
The goal of the philosophy of science is to understand and describe the
methods and reasoning of science. The scientific method that I described is
the method actually used by scientists to achieve their goals. In fact, a
scientist once told me that a good hypothesis is the basis for a good
abstract. The scientific method that I describe is the method used to
verify and demonstrate claims in science. I'm not sure what you are arguing
against here, but it certainly isn't anything that I have said.
You are
also mistaken if you think that there is only one way to do science.
In your above example your "theory" in step two would be considered an
untested hypothesis or even assertion. Scientific theories are
considered to be well tested explanations of the body of scientific
evidence.
Using your description of the scientific method raises a number of
questions. If a scientific theory starts out as a hypothesis (common
definition), then why have I never heard of the hypothesis of evolution?
Why have I never heard of gravitational hypothesis, or electromagnetic
hypothesis, or the special hypothesis of relativity? Why don't
scientists
attending science conferences gather to decide which hypotheses should
become theories? Why don't we see letters to science journals urging
that a
particular hypothesis should become a theory? It seems that scientists
don't follow the method that you describe.
Because the modern terminology wasn't used when the theory was
developed over a hundred years ago, and biological evolution hasn't
been a hypothesis for a very long time?
Biological evolution was never a hypothesis. In science, an hypothesis is a
specific prediction based upon a theory. Biological evolution is the
theory. Now, do you have answers for the rest of the questions?
Even though people call it string theory it isn't a scientific theory
and the guys that are working on it know why.
Why? And if you haven't noticed, they do call it string theory.
Who knows when string
theory will become what is considered a scientific theory like
biological evolution?
String theory is a scientific theory like biological evolution is a
scientific theory. The difference between them is in the quantity, range,
and quality of evidence. But that is true of all theories. The validity
of any theory in science is determined entirely by how well it fits the
evidence, and that is different for every theory. There is no need to
impose some artificial separation between established theories and slightly
less established theories.
Who claims that all hypotheses will become what
science calls theories? There would be thousands of theories if every
verified hypothesis became a theory.
I never said that, nor did I say that you said that.
The answer to your question is
that there is no such question.
Which question is this supposed to be answering?
A large part of science is
verification and testing. How do you think that, that gets done?
By forming hypotheses and testing them with experiments. Isn't that what
I've been saying all along?
Every little test isn't that big of a deal.
Also, how much testing is required for a hypothesis to be considered
"well
tested"? Ten tests? A hundred? A whole lot? How much anomalous data
is
allowed? None? Ten results? Ten percent? What happens if a
hypothesis
becomes a theory, and then additional data is produced that conflicts
with
the theory? Does the theory go back to being a hypothesis? And who
decides? You? Me? President Bush? The really smart guy you met on
the
bus this morning? And who decides who decides?
You really don't know how science works do you? It is called
consensus, and it takes quite a bit of testing before something is
widely accepted. Until that time it may be provisionally accepted, but
nothing gets written in stone. No matter what Bush or any one single
person claims.
You really don't know how to read for comprehension, do you? I never
suggested that President Bush should decide which theories are correct and
which are not. I didn't even suggest that Bush should decide when a
hypothesis should become a theory. I did say that if your description of
the scientific method is correct, then you need to answer all of the
questions I asked in my post. How much testing is required for a hypothesis
to be considered "well tested"? How much anomalous data is allowed? What
happens if a hypothesis becomes a theory, and then additional data is
produced that conflicts with the theory? Does the theory go back to being a
hypothesis? And who decides? And who decides who decides?
All of these questions need to be answered if hypotheses turn into
theories.
And all of these questions go away if we use the steps and the sequence
that
I provided (which, BTW, are not mine). A theory is a theory is a
theory.
The only thing that makes any theory any better or worse than any other
theory, is the support it receives from the evidence.
Not all hypotheses turn into scientific theories. That is a given that
even you should accept, but theories have to start out as something, so
what is that something?
A theory. Again, you don't seem to be reading for comprehension. I never
said that all hypotheses turn into theories. In fact, I said that no
hypothesis ever becomes a theory. Theories and hypotheses are different
things. A theory is an explanation for a set of data. An hypothesis is a
specific prediction based upon a theory. Neither can turn into the other.
Testing your notions takes many forms and there should be a
broad definition of what you call an "experiment" in step 4.
Obviously, my discussion of the scientific method was incomplete. The
experiment in step four tests the hypothesis proposed in step three.
However, there is no reason the method can't be interrupted at any time
to
accommodate new data. This data could be the result of simple
observations,
or it could be the result of experiments proposed for the sole purpose
of
just seeing what happens. The scientific method is a tool, not a strict
requirement for carrying out an investigation.
Good, so what is your beef?
I take it that means you agree?
Once theories have been established they are constantly tested
I thought they were already tested? Are you now telling me they aren't
sufficiently tested? How is this testing different from the testing
when
you thought the theory was a hypothesis?
Ignorance of science or just faned stupidity to make some stupid point?
If you knew anything about science you would know that it has never
been finished.
Then apparently I know something about science. You said earlier,
"Scientific theories are considered to be well tested explanations of the
body of scientific evidence." Now you are saying that, "Once theories have
been established they are constantly tested." Which raises my question,
what is the difference between the testing before the theory has become
established and after the theory has become established? Using the method
that I described, there is no difference because the explanation for the
data is always a theory. The method is the same no matter how much data is
available. Your distinction between hypothesis (common definition) and
theory is entirely artificial and serves no purpose.
by what
you can infer from them given new data or review of the old data.
In the method I described, these inferences are called hypotheses.
They
also help form new questions to ask about nature. Answering these new
questions takes the form of hypothesis testing.
Quite a bit of science gets done bassackwards. Something strikes a
scientist's fancy and he has to figure out a way to get to the answers
that he needs to determine if he is onto something or not. Science
isn't pure and pristine, it only depends on the bottom line, how did
you validate your conclusions and is your validation good enough to
convince others that you are onto something.
One of the advantages of the method that I described, is that it
resolves
the conflict between inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive
reasoning
is used to form theories; deductive reasoning is used to form
hypotheses.
To form a theory, a scientist must look at a set of data and try to
identify
patterns that will lead to an explanation. Sometimes producing a theory
requires a certain amount of inspiration.
No one cares about inductive or deductive reasoning.
Apparently some people do, and the method I described resolves that
conflict.
What matters are
the results and how you can demonstrate your verifications.
Right: by forming hypotheses and testing them with experiments.
The scientific method is not an all-encompassing description of what
scientists do. It is a tool used by scientists like publication is a
tool
and peer review is a tool. The scientific method can be used anywhere
at
any time by anyone at any stage of an investigation. If you have a set
of
data, you can use the scientific method. It doesn't matter if you have
a
little data or a lot of data or new data or old data or incomplete data,
all
you need is data and you can apply the scientific method.
I thought that you just admitted that your scientific method was
incomplete. There isn't one scientific method. You have to deal with
reality, not some pie in the sky philosophical nonsense.
I said (again, reading for comprehension), my DISCUSSION of the scientific
method was incomplete. My original post simply put the definitions of
theory and hypothesis into the context of the scientific method.
Intelligent Design started bassackwards, but it never got around to
the
validation part, so it never got to the stage where it could be
evaluated by science.
The creationist scientific method would have only two steps. Step one
would
be their theory, and step two would be the evaluation of the data with
respect to the theory. Any data that doesn't fit the theory is modified
or
rejected. Of course, ID doesn't actually have a theory, but that
doesn't
stop them from evaluating the evidence.
It doesn't matter what the creationist scientific method is. What
matters is that it never amounts to anything.
Actually, I don't think creationists have a scientific method. I was simply
pointing out how badly they've botched their reasoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
10 Jun 2006 10:06:40 AM |
|
|
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149899366.894981.199030@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149769160.824192.230050@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149699445.713127.201790@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
------------------------------------------------------
Top Ten Myths About Evolution
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of
Wisconsin -
Green Bay
A Note to Visitors
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if
you
want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first
have to
answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this
question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of
whether a
theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a
great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine
whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or
just
playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the
burden of
proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for
testing.
It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you
open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
[snip]
2. It's Only A Theory
"Theory" does not mean "hypothesis" or "guess" "Theory"
means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of
previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a
possible
explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a
theory. A
theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly
but
incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing.
All
hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.
I'm afraid this is not correct. The scientific method has four
steps.
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and
experimentation.
Step two is theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
Step three is hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction
based
upon
a theory.
Step four is experiment. An experiment directly tests an
hypothesis.
The
result is more data, which returns us to step one.
As you can see, in science, a theory and an hypothesis are different
things.
[snip]
Science doesn't work this way, and you may be confusing terms.
I suspect that confusion of terms is what has caused the misconception
that
theories start out as hypotheses. Before this use of the term
"hypothesis"
was inserted into the scientific method, the four steps were data,
theory,
prediction, and experiment. Unfortunately, some not so scientific
minded
people made some general predictions that turned out to be right. They
then
claimed that this supported the theories they were promoting. So the
term
"hypothesis" was inserted to replace "prediction", with hypothesis
defined
as a specific prediction based upon a theory.
What misconception? A lot of what are considered scientific theories
started out as speculation. Can you possibly deny this?
Yes, some theories start out as speculation, but they are still called
theories. Why do we need to call them anything different?
SNIP:
The fact is that you have non standard definitions of your terms.
These terms are losely applied in science, but I doubt that the
majority of scientists have your definition of hypothesis and theory in
mind. Hypotheses are essentially explanations, you end up splitting
hairs to make your distinctions.
Another fact is that science doesn't work one way. Anyone that wanted
to limit science to something that stupid should be shot.
If you have specific questions that you want answered repeat them
because given these facts I don't know what you want answered.
To another poster you asked the question when does an hypothesis become
a theory? I answered this question, and if you knew what science was
and how it works you would know the answer too. When we talk about
theories like biological evolution or atomic theory we aren't talking
about what the vast majority of scientific hypotheses amount to. You
have to know this. How does science work? We don't take one person's
word for anything. Things have to be verified and there has to be a
consensus. This can happen very quickly or it can take a long time if
the people involved can't figure out a good way to test their notions.
Look at the string theory example. The guys involved in the effort may
call it string theory, but they all agree that it hasn't yet made it to
the level of being a valid scientific theory. If even the proponents
agree, then you know that they aren't using theory in the standard
agreed on form. Why would they agree that they haven't made it to that
level if they had a theory? Anyone can see that what they have is an
elaborate hypothesis that they are trying to test.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
11 Jun 2006 01:25:59 AM |
|
|
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149951999.948517.137480@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
The fact is that you have non standard definitions of your terms.
These terms are losely applied in science, but I doubt that the
majority of scientists have your definition of hypothesis and theory in
mind. Hypotheses are essentially explanations, you end up splitting
hairs to make your distinctions.
You seem to be having difficulty with my use of the term "hypothesis", so
let's restate the scientific method without it. The four steps of the
scientific method are:
Data, which is the result of observation and experimentation.
Theory, which is an explanation for the data.
Prediction, which must be specific and based upon a theory.
Experiment, which directly tests a prediction.
Now that I have removed the source of your confusion, what do you think is
wrong with this method?
Another fact is that science doesn't work one way. Anyone that wanted
to limit science to something that stupid should be shot.
So you think I should be shot if I disagree with you?
If you have specific questions that you want answered repeat them
because given these facts I don't know what you want answered.
If an explanation for a set of data starts out as an hypothesis and later
becomes a theory, then:
How much testing is required for a hypothesis to be considered "well
tested"?
How much anomalous data is allowed?
What happens if a hypothesis becomes a theory, and then additional data is
produced that conflicts with the theory? Does the theory go back to being a
hypothesis?
Who decides?
Who decides who decides?
To another poster you asked the question when does an hypothesis become
a theory? I answered this question, and if you knew what science was
and how it works you would know the answer too.
An hypothesis never becomes a theory. Science doesn't use the common
definition of "hypothesis" in the scientific method. A scientific
explanation for a set of data is always a theory, no matter how much or how
little data is available. A scientific theory serves the same function not
matter how much testing has been done or how much data is available.
When we talk about
theories like biological evolution or atomic theory we aren't talking
about what the vast majority of scientific hypotheses amount to.
We could also say that, when we talk about theories like biological
evolution or atomic theory we aren't talking about what the vast majority of
scientific theories amount to.
You
have to know this. How does science work? We don't take one person's
word for anything. Things have to be verified and there has to be a
consensus. This can happen very quickly or it can take a long time if
the people involved can't figure out a good way to test their notions.
What is it about the method that I presented that makes you think it
promotes reasoning by authority? What is it about the method that I
presented that makes you think it excludes consensus?
Look at the string theory example. The guys involved in the effort may
call it string theory, but they all agree that it hasn't yet made it to
the level of being a valid scientific theory.
And yet, they still call it a theory. All theories in science are supported
by the evidence to a different degree. The amount of evidence supporting
each theory is different. The range of the evidence supporting each theory
is different. The quality of the evidence supporting each theory is
different. Scientists judge the validity of a theory based upon the
evidence; they do not look at whether it is called a theory or an
hypothesis.
If even the proponents
agree, then you know that they aren't using theory in the standard
agreed on form. Why would they agree that they haven't made it to that
level if they had a theory?
Because they are concerned only with the evidence. They don't care about
your artificial separation of theory and hypothesis. Making such a
distinction doesn't help them.
Anyone can see that what they have is an
elaborate hypothesis that they are trying to test.
Anyone can see that there is no need to make a distinction between theories
and hypotheses. The distinction is entirely arbitrary and of no value to a
scientific investigation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
12 Jun 2006 06:53:51 AM |
|
|
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149951999.948517.137480@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
The fact is that you have non standard definitions of your terms.
These terms are losely applied in science, but I doubt that the
majority of scientists have your definition of hypothesis and theory in
mind. Hypotheses are essentially explanations, you end up splitting
hairs to make your distinctions.
You seem to be having difficulty with my use of the term "hypothesis", so
let's restate the scientific method without it. The four steps of the
scientific method are:
Data, which is the result of observation and experimentation.
Theory, which is an explanation for the data.
Prediction, which must be specific and based upon a theory.
Experiment, which directly tests a prediction.
SNIP:
I'd like to ask what reason do you have for using "theory" in this way?
The reason that I ask is that about the only guys that would care are
the ID creationist scam artists out to con people. There really isn't
any reason for changing the current notions, except to obfuscate the
fact that somethings that people call theories are just vacuous
notions. Intelligent design theory is just that. It hasn't even
gotten to the level where it is a testable hypothesis, but the ID scam
artists are touting it as a theory, and they are adamant about calling
biological evolution "just a theory." It is all part of the
creationist scam. Do you acknowledge that this is true? How do you
get around this problem, or are you doing it to obfuscate the issue
that is usually the topic of this forum? Obfuscation isn't science,
and it is definitely not a good reason to mess around with definitions.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
14 Jun 2006 02:00:19 AM |
|
|
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1150113231.477316.318410@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149951999.948517.137480@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
The fact is that you have non standard definitions of your terms.
These terms are losely applied in science, but I doubt that the
majority of scientists have your definition of hypothesis and theory
in
mind. Hypotheses are essentially explanations, you end up splitting
hairs to make your distinctions.
You seem to be having difficulty with my use of the term "hypothesis",
so
let's restate the scientific method without it. The four steps of the
scientific method are:
Data, which is the result of observation and experimentation.
Theory, which is an explanation for the data.
Prediction, which must be specific and based upon a theory.
Experiment, which directly tests a prediction.
SNIP:
I'd like to ask what reason do you have for using "theory" in this way?
The reason that I ask is that about the only guys that would care are
the ID creationist scam artists out to con people. There really isn't
any reason for changing the current notions, except to obfuscate the
fact that somethings that people call theories are just vacuous
notions. Intelligent design theory is just that. It hasn't even
gotten to the level where it is a testable hypothesis, but the ID scam
artists are touting it as a theory, and they are adamant about calling
biological evolution "just a theory." It is all part of the
creationist scam. Do you acknowledge that this is true? How do you
get around this problem, or are you doing it to obfuscate the issue
that is usually the topic of this forum? Obfuscation isn't science,
and it is definitely not a good reason to mess around with definitions.
This is what I think happened:
In the philosophy of science, the scientific method was refined to the
method that I originally presented. The four steps were data, theory,
hypothesis, and experiment, with hypothesis defined as a specific prediction
based upon a theory.
Some scientists, being unfamiliar with this definition of hypothesis,
applied the common definition. But this doesn't make sense, so they assumed
there was an error and rearranged the steps. So you see, your version of
the scientific method is the one using the altered definitions and the
altered sequence.
When a creationist says that evolution is just a theory, the typical
evolutionist response would be to present your definition of theory. The
creationist response is to claim that evolution should really just be a
hypothesis. So you see, you really haven't gained anything by using this
method. All you've done is change the terminology. And personally, I think
your terminology is more confusing.
When a creationist tells me that evolution is just a theory, I explain that
a theory is an explanation for a set of evidence. Evolution explains the
evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and biochemistry. And
then I thank them for admitting that evolution explains the evidence.
Finally, when it comes to defining the scientific method, I don't think it
should matter what the creationists do. The scientific method is a tool for
scientists. If the general public has trouble understanding it, too bad.
If creationists abuse it, we'll just have to deal with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
15 Jun 2006 07:06:18 PM |
|
|
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1150113231.477316.318410@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149951999.948517.137480@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
The fact is that you have non standard definitions of your terms.
These terms are losely applied in science, but I doubt that the
majority of scientists have your definition of hypothesis and theory
in
mind. Hypotheses are essentially explanations, you end up splitting
hairs to make your distinctions.
You seem to be having difficulty with my use of the term "hypothesis",
so
let's restate the scientific method without it. The four steps of the
scientific method are:
Data, which is the result of observation and experimentation.
Theory, which is an explanation for the data.
Prediction, which must be specific and based upon a theory.
Experiment, which directly tests a prediction.
SNIP:
I'd like to ask what reason do you have for using "theory" in this way?
The reason that I ask is that about the only guys that would care are
the ID creationist scam artists out to con people. There really isn't
any reason for changing the current notions, except to obfuscate the
fact that somethings that people call theories are just vacuous
notions. Intelligent design theory is just that. It hasn't even
gotten to the level where it is a testable hypothesis, but the ID scam
artists are touting it as a theory, and they are adamant about calling
biological evolution "just a theory." It is all part of the
creationist scam. Do you acknowledge that this is true? How do you
get around this problem, or are you doing it to obfuscate the issue
that is usually the topic of this forum? Obfuscation isn't science,
and it is definitely not a good reason to mess around with definitions.
This is what I think happened:
In the philosophy of science, the scientific method was refined to the
method that I originally presented. The four steps were data, theory,
hypothesis, and experiment, with hypothesis defined as a specific prediction
based upon a theory.
Some scientists, being unfamiliar with this definition of hypothesis,
applied the common definition. But this doesn't make sense, so they assumed
there was an error and rearranged the steps. So you see, your version of
the scientific method is the one using the altered definitions and the
altered sequence.
Actually science just went with something that usually works. Your
good old days were when we didn't know any better and the default
explanation of Western sciecne was still God did it. Wasn't that the
basal theory of just about everything during the time that you are
talking about?
When a creationist says that evolution is just a theory, the typical
evolutionist response would be to present your definition of theory. The
creationist response is to claim that evolution should really just be a
hypothesis. So you see, you really haven't gained anything by using this
method. All you've done is change the terminology. And personally, I think
your terminology is more confusing.
We don't say present your definition of theory. Because they know that
they aren't talking about the same thing. We just claim that they are
using bogus definitions to make it look like they have an argument. It
is just a fact that when they call their junk ID theory, that they are
just blowing smoke and they know that it isn't equivalent to real
scientific theories. If they believed that they really had a
scientific theory of the type like biological evolution, we would have
seen it by now, and the current creationist scam that replaced the ID
scam wouldn't be just the old creationist obfuscation scam and lack any
mention that ID ever existed.
When a creationist tells me that evolution is just a theory, I explain that
a theory is an explanation for a set of evidence. Evolution explains the
evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and biochemistry. And
then I thank them for admitting that evolution explains the evidence.
Finally, when it comes to defining the scientific method, I don't think it
should matter what the creationists do. The scientific method is a tool for
scientists. If the general public has trouble understanding it, too bad.
If creationists abuse it, we'll just have to deal with it.
It doesn't matter what creationists do. It is how science actually
works, and you won't make it any better by trying to change things so
that the antiscience faction can use it more easily as a scam tool.
All science has to do today is point out the scam. It doesn't make
much difference to most of the rubes and the scammers, but you can't do
any better. They aren't going to listen to you, either.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
16 Jun 2006 12:28:38 AM |
|
|
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1150416378.351362.169790@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1150113231.477316.318410@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149951999.948517.137480@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
The fact is that you have non standard definitions of your terms.
These terms are losely applied in science, but I doubt that the
majority of scientists have your definition of hypothesis and
theory
in
mind. Hypotheses are essentially explanations, you end up
splitting
hairs to make your distinctions.
You seem to be having difficulty with my use of the term
"hypothesis",
so
let's restate the scientific method without it. The four steps of
the
scientific method are:
Data, which is the result of observation and experimentation.
Theory, which is an explanation for the data.
Prediction, which must be specific and based upon a theory.
Experiment, which directly tests a prediction.
SNIP:
I'd like to ask what reason do you have for using "theory" in this
way?
The reason that I ask is that about the only guys that would care are
the ID creationist scam artists out to con people. There really isn't
any reason for changing the current notions, except to obfuscate the
fact that somethings that people call theories are just vacuous
notions. Intelligent design theory is just that. It hasn't even
gotten to the level where it is a testable hypothesis, but the ID scam
artists are touting it as a theory, and they are adamant about calling
biological evolution "just a theory." It is all part of the
creationist scam. Do you acknowledge that this is true? How do you
get around this problem, or are you doing it to obfuscate the issue
that is usually the topic of this forum? Obfuscation isn't science,
and it is definitely not a good reason to mess around with
definitions.
This is what I think happened:
In the philosophy of science, the scientific method was refined to the
method that I originally presented. The four steps were data, theory,
hypothesis, and experiment, with hypothesis defined as a specific
prediction
based upon a theory.
Some scientists, being unfamiliar with this definition of hypothesis,
applied the common definition. But this doesn't make sense, so they
assumed
there was an error and rearranged the steps. So you see, your version
of
the scientific method is the one using the altered definitions and the
altered sequence.
Actually science just went with something that usually works. Your
good old days were when we didn't know any better and the default
explanation of Western sciecne was still God did it. Wasn't that the
basal theory of just about everything during the time that you are
talking about?
The method that I described is the one that works. It was adopted three or
four decades ago. The method that you are describing is a misinterpretation
of that method.
When a creationist says that evolution is just a theory, the typical
evolutionist response would be to present your definition of theory.
The
creationist response is to claim that evolution should really just be a
hypothesis. So you see, you really haven't gained anything by using
this
method. All you've done is change the terminology. And personally, I
think
your terminology is more confusing.
We don't say present your definition of theory. Because they know that
they aren't talking about the same thing. We just claim that they are
using bogus definitions to make it look like they have an argument. It
is just a fact that when they call their junk ID theory, that they are
just blowing smoke and they know that it isn't equivalent to real
scientific theories. If they believed that they really had a
scientific theory of the type like biological evolution, we would have
seen it by now, and the current creationist scam that replaced the ID
scam wouldn't be just the old creationist obfuscation scam and lack any
mention that ID ever existed.
Also, if creationists had a real theory, they would be able to deal with the
evidence. However, creationists are woefully ignorant of the evidence.
When a creationist tells me that evolution is just a theory, I explain
that
a theory is an explanation for a set of evidence. Evolution explains
the
evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and biochemistry.
And
then I thank them for admitting that evolution explains the evidence.
Finally, when it comes to defining the scientific method, I don't think
it
should matter what the creationists do. The scientific method is a tool
for
scientists. If the general public has trouble understanding it, too
bad.
If creationists abuse it, we'll just have to deal with it.
It doesn't matter what creationists do. It is how science actually
works, and you won't make it any better by trying to change things so
that the antiscience faction can use it more easily as a scam tool.
All science has to do today is point out the scam. It doesn't make
much difference to most of the rubes and the scammers, but you can't do
any better. They aren't going to listen to you, either.
I'm not the one changing the method. The method that I have described is
the one that actually works. The method that you are describing is a
misinterpretation of the scientific method.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
11 Jun 2006 07:04:25 PM |
|
|
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149951999.948517.137480@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
The fact is that you have non standard definitions of your terms.
These terms are losely applied in science, but I doubt that the
majority of scientists have your definition of hypothesis and theory in
mind. Hypotheses are essentially explanations, you end up splitting
hairs to make your distinctions.
You seem to be having difficulty with my use of the term "hypothesis", so
let's restate the scientific method without it. The four steps of the
scientific method are:
Data, which is the result of observation and experimentation.
Theory, which is an explanation for the data.
Prediction, which must be specific and based upon a theory.
Experiment, which directly tests a prediction.
Now that I have removed the source of your confusion, what do you think is
wrong with this method?
Your use of theory, is still what is considered to be a hypothesis in
modern terminology. No matter what you think, it isn't standard usage.
Another fact is that science doesn't work one way. Anyone that wanted
to limit science to something that stupid should be shot.
So you think I should be shot if I disagree with you?
Only if you think that science should be done one way. Are you that
stupid or just pretending?
If you have specific questions that you want answered repeat them
because given these facts I don't know what you want answered.
If an explanation for a set of data starts out as an hypothesis and later
becomes a theory, then:
How much testing is required for a hypothesis to be considered "well
tested"?
I answered this already. Science forms a consensus. It is just that
simple. Do you know what consensus is? Atomic theory is supported by
consensus.
How much anomalous data is allowed?
As much as the body of science agrees on.
What happens if a hypothesis becomes a theory, and then additional data is
produced that conflicts with the theory? Does the theory go back to being a
hypothesis?
Guess what? The theory gets changed. How do you think change happens?
What happened when Enstein came along? Theories got modified, why
should it be any other way?
Who decides?
Everyone worth mentioning that is interested in the topic. If you
disagree with the consensus you are free to voice your disagreement and
present the evidence and try and convince others that you are right.
How do you think that science works? Have you ever even looked into
it?
Who decides who decides?
No one cares, even a patent clerk can get involved in science.
To another poster you asked the question when does an hypothesis become
a theory? I answered this question, and if you knew what science was
and how it works you would know the answer too.
An hypothesis never becomes a theory. Science doesn't use the common
definition of "hypothesis" in the scientific method. A scientific
explanation for a set of data is always a theory, no matter how much or how
little data is available. A scientific theory serves the same function not
matter how much testing has been done or how much data is available.
Face this fact. What is called string theory is only a hypothesis
under test. If they are ever able to test it and the testing goes
their way it will join the ranks of theories like relativity. Not
because it is an explanation, basically all hypotheses that you can
test are explanations of one kind or another, but because it is a
fairly general and important explanation that would rate the
distinction of being classed as a scientific theory. I didn't make up
these distinctions they evolved over time. You don't have to accept
them, but probably no one else would care.
When we talk about
theories like biological evolution or atomic theory we aren't talking
about what the vast majority of scientific hypotheses amount to.
We could also say that, when we talk about theories like biological
evolution or atomic theory we aren't talking about what the vast majority of
scientific theories amount to.
We already call them hypotheses. We have untestable hypotheses and
testable hypotheses. Only the testable ones have much merit in
science, and their viability depends on the outcome of the testing.
You
have to know this. How does science work? We don't take one person's
word for anything. Things have to be verified and there has to be a
consensus. This can happen very quickly or it can take a long time if
the people involved can't figure out a good way to test their notions.
What is it about the method that I presented that makes you think it
promotes reasoning by authority? What is it about the method that I
presented that makes you think it excludes consensus?
What are you complaining about, and when did I claim that you were
promoting reasoning by authority? You are the one that keeps asking
who decides when it never is a single person. If you already know the
answer, why expect any other answer than the one you have been given?
Look at the string theory example. The guys involved in the effort may
call it string theory, but they all agree that it hasn't yet made it to
the level of being a valid scientific theory.
And yet, they still call it a theory. All theories in science are supported
by the evidence to a different degree. The amount of evidence supporting
each theory is different. The range of the evidence supporting each theory
is different. The quality of the evidence supporting each theory is
different. Scientists judge the validity of a theory based upon the
evidence; they do not look at whether it is called a theory or an
hypothesis.
Scientists call a lot of things theories, so what? It doesn't mean
that if you are trying to promote some formal explanation of science
that you can do that and expect people to agree with you.
If even the proponents
agree, then you know that they aren't using theory in the standard
agreed on form. Why would they agree that they haven't made it to that
level if they had a theory?
Because they are concerned only with the evidence. They don't care about
your artificial separation of theory and hypothesis. Making such a
distinction doesn't help them.
And you care, why? I'm the one that claims that there isn't a single
way to do science and you are the one that keeps claiming that you have
the way, and it involved some unorthodox definitions of theory and
hypothesis. This is kind of ridiculous isn't it?
Anyone can see that what they have is an
elaborate hypothesis that they are trying to test.
Anyone can see that there is no need to make a distinction between theories
and hypotheses. The distinction is entirely arbitrary and of no value to a
scientific investigation.
As you have been told by others nearly all hypotheses worth anything
are explanations of one kind or another. If you are going to change
definitions you have to have a better reason to do it than what you
have. I don't make this stuff up, and you can't do it either. Why not
go with the general consensus, isn't that how science works?
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: Top Ten Myths About Evolution |
14 Jun 2006 01:34:30 AM |
|
|
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1150070665.558813.162970@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ross Langerak wrote:
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1149951999.948517.137480@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
The fact is that you have non standard definitions of your terms.
These terms are losely applied in science, but I doubt that the
majority of scientists have your definition of hypothesis and theory
in
mind. Hypotheses are essentially explanations, you end up splitting
hairs to make your distinctions.
You seem to be having difficulty with my use of the term "hypothesis",
so
let's restate the scientific method without it. The four steps of the
scientific method are:
Data, which is the result of observation and experimentation.
Theory, which is an explanation for the data.
Prediction, which must be specific and based upon a theory.
Experiment, which directly tests a prediction.
Now that I have removed the source of your confusion, what do you think
is
wrong with this method?
Your use of theory, is still what is considered to be a hypothesis in
modern terminology. No matter what you think, it isn't standard usage.
Actually, your use of "hypothesis" is the common definition, and has no
place in the scientific method.
Another fact is that science doesn't work one way. Anyone that wanted
to limit science to something that stupid should be shot.
So you think I should be shot if I disagree with you?
Only if you think that science shoul | | | | | | | | | |
