What would it take?

[SnakeLord]

First of all, by definition the "Theory of Evolution" has not in fact been proven. (If it had, it would not be called a theory.)

This is an unfortunate all too common error.

1. Nothing has been "proven". That is not science.

2. You are corrupting the term 'theory' to mean something it does not.

Quick challenge

Please list the following in order of scientific importance:

Hypotheses, facts, laws, theories

Unfortunately I am going to have to provide the correct answer in order to continue this post but kindly try to answer it as you would before consulting the answer, (if you haven't seen it already).

It's of no surprise to see that laypeople generally get it wrong. This is due to it being a seriously common misunderstanding.















Answer

Theories
Laws
Hypotheses
Facts

Most people tend to put 'facts' first - taking 'fact' to mean 'proven'. This of course is not true and it need be noted here, in bold, that theories do not become facts, they explain facts.

Facts are observations that are not themselves tested due to numerous observation. For instance, should you hold an object in your hand and let go, it will fall to the floor. This is a fact - but facts are not necessarily true. Should you be holding that object in space, it wouldn't fall to the floor, likewise if you were on a lift with broken cables, plummeting to the ground at 9.8 metres/second2.

A 'theory' "incorporates facts, laws, inferences and hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences 1998: 7).

A theory is an explanation of those observations. It is not a guess, hunch or 'proven', (all science is tentative).

“The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” (National Academy of Sciences 2008: 11)

Please, take some time to become familiar with the terms science uses and how it uses them. And finally, kindly drop statements like "it's not proven" - nothing is, the statement has no value.

Regards,

 

[Jan Ardena]

" Proof (truth), sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition"

Darwins theory of evolution is distributed as truth, and Darwin is revered
for it.


jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

[French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christinus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrstinus, Christian; see Christian

Yes, a "cretin" is a person of marked mental deficiency otherwise known as a "christian". From the view of standard dictionaries, you're a retard.

I would - obviously - encourage that we not work by such definitions because they do not and cannot actually capture any word as seen and understood in a modern perspective.

In the common understanding 'proof' is used to denote factual reality, (which is to say that 'proof' describes a 'fact' and that 'theory' just decribes a guess_.

No such thing exists in the realm of science.

You say "Darwin's theory of evolution" which is to say... what? (natural selection). Darwin or no Darwin, evolution is a "fact". That's not to say that it will be so tomorrow, who knows, maybe space god will take it upon himself to render that fact moot - such is the irrelevancy of facts.

The 'theory' - which does not mean guess - explains that fact. common descent - which is a fact, is explained by natural selection, (among other things).

Whether "Darwin is revered" or not is of no consequence here - it is inconseuqential to anything although perhaps he is given that Origin etc happen to be perhaps the most scientifically monumentous moment in all of mankinds history. Evolution, (which was understood), and natural selection, (which Darwin taught us), offer more to countless fields of science than any other theory possibly could do. In fact, biology doesn't even make sense outside of evolution.To quote:

“Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, the most satisfying science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts, some of them more or less interesting, but making no comprehensible whole” (Dobzhansky 1973: 129)

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1973. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". American Biology Teacher 25: 125–129

This is so, not just regarding biology but countless other scientific fields as well. Without 'evolution, (common descent), there's little left that makes any sense.

Of course there are certain theists or IDists who do not argue common descent, (Behe being one of them). Instead they fixate on natual selection, arguing that if NS is not true, ID therefore must be. Not only is this a fallacy, it's of no worth to begin with. Even in the absence of explaining the flagellum etc, we can't argue supernatural causation, (but then they don't dare define ID in supernatural terms), or any form of intelligent causation - it's simply a smokescreen to get christianity enforced in the science programme - replacing reality with make-believe.

No Jan, we do not "prove", that's not the scientific way - it is simply a term that is used far too often by non-scientists. We explain facts, (evolution), using that which science calls "theory" - a word unfortunately most commoners perceive as "guess" or "baseless idea". It is not that way in science.

For what it actually means, there is no "controversy" other than uneducated morons mistaking and misunderstanding basic reality.

 

[NMSquirrel]

In the common understanding 'proof' is used to denote factual reality, (which is to say that 'proof' describes a 'fact' and that 'theory' just decribes a guess_.

i always though hypothesis is the guess part..

that would be supposition right? (guess)

alot of science began as a guess..

 

[phlogistician]

i always though hypothesis is the guess part..

Guess?

Yeah, that's right, scientists spend all day guessing.

alot of science began as a guess..

No. It began as an observation, and a question. Not guessing.

 

[SnakeLord]

i always though hypothesis is the guess part..

No. A 'hypothesis' is typically an if-then statement describing the relationship among things.

(e.g If the age (and thus experience) of the matriarch is important for the survival of the group, then groups with younger matriarchs will have higher infant mortality than those led by older ones [Eugenie Scott 09]).

It is directly testable statement of relationships. Hope that helps.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is an unfortunate all too common error.

1. Nothing has been "proven". That is not science.

2. You are corrupting the term 'theory' to mean something it does not.

Quick challenge

Please list the following in order of scientific importance:

Hypotheses, facts, laws, theories

Unfortunately I am going to have to provide the correct answer in order to continue this post but kindly try to answer it as you would before consulting the answer, (if you haven't seen it already).

It's of no surprise to see that laypeople generally get it wrong. This is due to it being a seriously common misunderstanding.

even quicker challenge.

Suppose, for whatever reason, it was discovered that evolution had nowhere near the scope that it is commonly credited.
What doable practices would be placed in jeopardy?

Now suppose, for whatever reason, it was discovered that the boiling point of water is nowhere near 100 degrees.
What doable practices would be placed in jeopardy?

For the first one, I can only think of scientific grant applicants.
As for the second, I can think of a host of things ranging from cooking to metal smelting.

 

[SnakeLord]

even quicker challenge

Brief Note: Your 'challenge' isn't anywhere near as 'quick' to answer as listing 4 different words in order of scientific importance.

Suppose, for whatever reason, it was discovered that evolution had nowhere near the scope that it is commonly credited.
What doable practices would be placed in jeopardy?

1. That depends upon what we're talking about precisely but it's somewhat impossible to answer as posed. What are you referring to exactly? Please try and provide some more detail. What does 'nowhere near the scope' mean here? It could include anything from how we make antibiotics to how we breed animals - from medicine to farming and agriculture to botany. The effects would be far reaching, depending upon what you're talking about.

2. I am puzzled in so far as even if I said: "none", it wouldn't seemingly lead to any worthwhile point.

Now suppose, for whatever reason, it was discovered that the boiling point of water is nowhere near 100 degrees.
What doable practices would be placed in jeopardy?

Again the question is a little obscure. We could say "nothing" in regard to the fact that everything is seemingly going perfectly well with us living under the delusion that it does boil at such temperature. I would suggest if anything we'd need to remake all our thermometers, but otherwise I am unsure what the question is asking.

For the first one, I can only think of scientific grant applicants.
As for the second, I can think of a host of things ranging from cooking to metal smelting

Clearly then, you are more knowledgeable of cooking and metal smelting than you are the sciences. That's fine but I would point out that all "you can think of" isn't an argument to that being all there is.

What is seemingly being done here by you however is precisely what I have just done. The answer to nothing or "scientific grants" is simply based upon the fact that we 'boil' things without issue whether it turns out to be 100 degrees or 5. It seems utterly inconsequential when looking at it from that angle.

Does that help at all?

 

[lightgigantic]

Brief Note: Your 'challenge' isn't anywhere near as 'quick' to answer as listing 4 different words in order of scientific importance.

I think you're wrong

Deconstructing ambiguous spoof like "scientific importance" what to speak of a linear ladder of order to pigeon hole it in is certainly a subject of numerous wiki pages.

1. That depends upon what we're talking about precisely but it's somewhat impossible to answer as posed. What are you referring to exactly? Please try and provide some more detail. What does 'nowhere near the scope' mean here? It could include anything from how we make antibiotics to how we breed animals - from medicine to farming and agriculture to botany. The effects would be far reaching, depending upon what you're talking about.

If you can't name a single practice that is contingent on the fact (sic theory) what does it matter of the scope of error?

2. I am puzzled in so far as even if I said: "none", it wouldn't seemingly lead to any worthwhile point.

then you have an idea that stands outside of issues of practical application .... commonly called a theory

Again the question is a little obscure. We could say "nothing" in regard to the fact that everything is seemingly going perfectly well with us living under the delusion that it does boil at such temperature. I would suggest if anything we'd need to remake all our thermometers, but otherwise I am unsure what the question is asking.

kind of funny how a proposition becomes more difficult when it is more greatly weighed down by everyday practices (so much so, that even a minor scope of error causes problems ... )

Clearly then, you are more knowledgeable of cooking and metal smelting than you are the sciences. That's fine but I would point out that all "you can think of" isn't an argument to that being all there is.

just pointing out how easy it is to indicate a host of issues that are contingent on it .... I mean it doesn't require a great deal of spoofing up, does it?

What is seemingly being done here by you however is precisely what I have just done. The answer to nothing or "scientific grants" is simply based upon the fact that we 'boil' things without issue whether it turns out to be 100 degrees or 5. It seems utterly inconsequential when looking at it from that angle.

not really.

In the one instance, all that is jeopardized is the next bevy of grants and on the other you would have a finding that would radically underpin nearly all of atomic science (of which cooking, even the british version of it, shares a humble slice of)

Does that help at all?

All you have helped to do is dig yourself in a deeper pit
Primitive as english cooking is, even it still requires boiling water (in fact it probably accounts for over 95% of the recipes)

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

[French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christinus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrstinus, Christian; see Christian

Yes, a "cretin" is a person of marked mental deficiency otherwise known as a "christian". From the view of standard dictionaries, you're a retard.

Do you feel good, now that you've slipped in, what you believe to be, an
insult?
From the view of standard dictionaries?

In the common understanding 'proof' is used to denote factual reality, (which is to say that 'proof' describes a 'fact' and that 'theory' just decribes a guess_.

No such thing exists in the realm of science.

So what does 'proof' mean, in the realm of science?

You say "Darwin's theory of evolution" which is to say... what?

You really don't know?

(natural selection). Darwin or no Darwin, evolution is a "fact".

Well done.

The 'theory' - which does not mean guess - explains that fact. common descent - which is a fact, is explained by natural selection, (among other things).

We know this. But it has not been proven that we all
decended from a single cell.

Whether "Darwin is revered" or not is of no consequence here - it is inconseuqential to anything

It is if it allows people to believe the theory is truth.

“Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, the most satisfying science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts, some of them more or less interesting, but making no comprehensible whole” (Dobzhansky 1973: 129)

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1973. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". American Biology Teacher 25: 125–129

Not a universal opinion.

Of course there are certain theists or IDists who do not argue common descent, (Behe being one of them). Instead they fixate on natual selection, arguing that if NS is not true, ID therefore must be.
Not only is this a fallacy, it's of no worth to begin with. Even in the absence of explaining the flagellum etc, we can't argue supernatural causation, (but then they don't dare define ID in supernatural terms), or any form of intelligent causation - it's simply a smokescreen to get christianity enforced in the science programme - replacing reality with make-believe.

That's a big assumption leap. While the potential is there for that kind
of deception, it is unreasonable, not to mention paranoid, to assume that every id'ist has this agenda.

No Jan, we do not "prove", that's not the scientific way - it is simply a term that is used far too often by non-scientists. We explain facts, (evolution), using that which science calls "theory" - a word unfortunately most commoners perceive as "guess" or "baseless idea". It is not that way in science.

Most commoners?
wtf are you on?

For what it actually means, there is no "controversy" other than uneducated morons mistaking and misunderstanding basic reality.

What's got into you?
Stop with the elitist shite will ya.

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

No. A 'hypothesis' is typically an if-then statement describing the relationship among things.

(e.g If the age (and thus experience) of the matriarch is important for the survival of the group, then groups with younger matriarchs will have higher infant mortality than those led by older ones [Eugenie Scott 09]).

It is directly testable statement of relationships. Hope that helps.

so If users would get more educated, Then there wouldn't be so much BS..?
lol

 

[NMSquirrel]

light..jan..leave him alone..at least hes trying to teach something...as opposed to just argueing..

 

[gmilam]

so If users would get more educated, Then there wouldn't be so much BS..?
lol

:cheers:

Don't we all wish that was true! Unfortunately, I have yet to find any real link between intelligence, education & common sense.

 

[SnakeLord]

Lightgigantic

I think you're wrong

That's fair enough. I didn't take into account that some people might find it difficult putting four words in a numbered list in any order they thought appropriate, but then it's not something I've seen before. My apologies.

In the one instance, all that is jeopardized is the next bevy of grants and on the other you would have a finding that would radically underpin nearly all of atomic science (of which cooking, even the british version of it, shares a humble slice of)

This is actually incorrect. Should water not boil at 100, many things would certainly be different. If evolution didn't happen, none of us would even exist to care about the temperature water boils at.

Again I'm not taking into account how others might feel about that, but I would state the latter is far more severe than the former.

Primitive as english cooking is, even it still requires boiling water

I am unsure why you take this continual method of attempting to insult my country of origin and the people that live here. What do you gain by it exactly?

If you'd like to actually discuss cooking instead of science, (it's obviously more your forte), then kindly make a new thread in the cookery section and I'll be glad to pop by and discuss it.

-----

Jan Ardena

Do you feel good, now that you've slipped in, what you believe to be, an
insult?

It's not about "feeling good", it was about making a point regarding dictionary definitions. More pertinent to point out is that dictionaries don't do scientific words very well - which are typically overlooked in preference of common usage.

You really don't know?

I honestly wouldn't have expected this from you, Jan.

We know this. But it has not been proven that we all
decended from a single cell.

We're not going to get anywhere if you persist in using words that don't belong. No, nothing has been "proven", we might all live in the matrix after all, but what we do know is that we have all evolved from a common ancestor. Getting into it in depth is difficult here and frankly this will suffice. I am unsure what else need be said.

That's a big assumption leap. While the potential is there for that kind
of deception, it is unreasonable, not to mention paranoid, to assume that every id'ist has this agenda.

Not at all, it is well seen just by looking through the history of the creationist/ID movement. However, having said that, I didn't "assume every" but instead said: "Of course there are certain theists or IDists".

What's got into you?

Nothing, saying there is no controversy as far as the fact of evolution is concerned should hardly raise issue.

------

NMSquirrel

so If users would get more educated, Then there wouldn't be so much BS..?

I'd say so but can't say I'm surprised. My nieces for example haven't seemingly spent any time at all really learning science at school other than the very basics. It's always Spanish homework or CDT or Geography - all of which are I'm sure important in their own way, (although I am a tad bias against languages given that they ultimately serve very little use in a world that is typically able and willing to speak English). I keep questioning where the science homework is and what they've learnt only to get blank looks.

I think perhaps the complaint featured in Dawkins Unweaving the Rainbow, (and from what I recall several of his other books too), is spot on - from it not being given enough attention to the fact that by and large scientists don't make good celebrities and that science itself is probably often seen as boring - not even able to get a Facebook game or two unlike farming, cooking and dog walking.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic



That's fair enough. I didn't take into account that some people might find it difficult putting four words in a numbered list in any order they thought appropriate, but then it's not something I've seen before. My apologies.

Really?
You mean no ambiguous spoof required to justify it?
I'm impressed ....
:bravo:

 

[SnakeLord]

Let me know whenever you want a serious, (and mature), discussion.

Thank you.

 

[gmilam]

Now suppose, for whatever reason, it was discovered that the boiling point of water is nowhere near 100 degrees.

Ever boiled water in the mountains? High altitude?

You may now continue with your point... what ever it was.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic

This is actually incorrect. Should water not boil at 100, many things would certainly be different. If evolution didn't happen, none of us would even exist to care about the temperature water boils at.

really?
so if an alternative understanding of evolution is reached it's effect would be so wide as to disrupt the time/space continuum?

Pretty impressive for an idea that is largely lacking any doable practices (aside from the draftsmanship of grant applicants and the like ...)

I am unsure why you take this continual method of attempting to insult my country of origin and the people that live here. What do you gain by it exactly?

If you'd like to actually discuss cooking instead of science, (it's obviously more your forte), then kindly make a new thread in the cookery section and I'll be glad to pop by and discuss it.

Perhaps its the same thing you gain by your continual method of attempting to insult others by relegating them to cooking and whatnot.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ever boiled water in the mountains? High altitude?

You may now continue with your point... what ever it was.

Or in different pressurized environments?

Do you think it gives results that are vastly different from 100 degrees?

 

[lightgigantic]

Let me know whenever you want a serious, (and mature), discussion.

Thank you.

you're joking, right?

I mean if you want a discussion bereft of sly suggestions, it might pay to cut out the condescending comments that prompt them.

Frankly I don't mind playing either way.



The choice is yours.
:shrug: