MR complains about being moderated

Pinball1970 said:
This is interesting to me [theories cannot be definitively falsified]
Click to expand...

Consider:

"For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions"

- Albert Einstein


Think about what he's saying. "Artificial additional assumptions" ? Like . . . say . . . dark matter?
 
axocanth said:
For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions"

- Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
What the hell does that mean Albert? For all his smarts he does not half put a lot of noise into his thoughts.

HE knows what he means, no one else does.
 
Pinball1970 said:
What the hell does that mean Albert? For all his smarts he does not half put a lot of noise into his thoughts.

HE knows what he means, no one else does.
Click to expand...

Albert's philosophy of science -- which, luckily for us, he expatiates on at quite some length in various places -- takes a little work, but any difficulties encountered along the way cannot be blamed on lack of clarity. The man is the very epitome of clear thought. Niels Bohr on the other hand . . .

What he's saying above could not be more clear. When evidence or data appear to be in conflict with your theory, one option is to declare the theory false. This does not exhaust the options though; a scientist is rarely, perhaps never, compelled to the conclusion that the theory is false. The theory (the "general theoretical foundation") can often, perhaps always, be made to fit the facts by the addition of ad hoc or "artificial" assumptions.

Of course, one man's artificial or ad hoc assumption is another man's good science and great discovery. Think dark matter again.


Pinball1970 said:
Thoughts for the day, an olive branch is mightier than the sword. (And I'm British!)
Click to expand...

The penis mightier than the sword.

Oops, I mean "pen is".
 
Last edited:
axocanth said:
Do you believe "higher taxa" (genus and above) are real? A great many biologists explicitly express the view that they are not (see my quote from "Speciation" by Coyne/Orr in another place).
Click to expand...
I am ignorant on philosophy, I cannot argue with you on that level. I will have to ask what you mean by "real," in terms of physics that can mean different things.
To me? It means exists, I exist.

In terms of Linnaeus, he was a creationist (most people were then including the scientific community) and was trying to put the living world into some sort of order so we could make sense of it.
It is a brilliant system, genius really, imagine the work that went into it?
 
Pinball1970 said:
I am ignorant on philosophy, I cannot argue with you on that level. I will have to ask what you mean by "real," in terms of physics that can mean different things.
To me? It means exists, I exist.
Click to expand...

Well, we might, for a start, consider the question of whether or not something has causal powers: Can it cause or do anything?

A tornado, say, certainly has causal powers; it can cause all kinds of destruction, so it's unlikely we'd deny that a tornado is real. You do too; you can buy me a beer, for example. You can cause me to get merry. :) We hereby affirm your reality. And thanks!

Now, how about the taxon mammalia, say, or aves? Does it cause anything? I'm not asking about individual lemurs and cassowaries (which of course have causal powers). I'm asking about the taxon itself.
 
axocanth said:
Now, how about the taxon mammalia, say? Does it cause anything? I'm not asking about individual pandas and lemurs. I'm asking about the taxon itself.
Click to expand...
This is where my brain starts to melt a little, are you trying to teach me philosophy 101? I can feel a split thread coming on.

Answer no, the word itself is real but it represents a collection, a set of animals.
I am a mammal
A fish is not a mammal
 
Pinball1970 said:
This is where my brain starts to melt a little, are you trying to teach me philosophy 101? I can feel a split thread coming on.

Answer no, the word itself is real but it represents a collection, a set of animals.
I am a mammal
A fish is not a mammal
Click to expand...

Well, if the taxon mammal is not real, how can the statement "Humans are mammals" be true? (cf. "Humans are Santa's elves")

Is this simply a fact -- if it's a fact at all -- of our own creation?
 
axocanth said:
Well, if the taxon mammal is not real, how can the statement "Humans are mammals" be true? (cf. "Humans are Santa's elves")

Is this simply a fact -- if it's a fact at all -- of our own creation?
Click to expand...
But it is real, it is a collective noun that scientists understand to to mean a set of animals that meet a certain criteria.
 
Pinball1970 said:
But it is real, it is a collective noun that scientists understand to to mean a set of animals that meet a certain criteria.
Click to expand...

Ok, the view you're expressing here is that it's a category invented by taxonomists, perhaps a very useful one too, allowing good scientific work to be done.

But it answers to nothing real in nature itself. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top