Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Send Topic Print
Evolution is not a scientific theory (Read 32601 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #15 - Jul 31st, 2010 at 7:02pm
 
Quote:
If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of "improbability" or of "degree of falsification."


Sounds like a strawman to me muso. I ignored it because I don't see the relevance to my argument. My argument does not require a different view of what disproving actually involves to other philosophies.

Quote:
There is a disconnect. As Kuhn rightly pointed out, many scientists continue to present their work according to their falsification model. On the other hand, the research is carried out on a much more intuitive basis.


Actually, I think that what he pointed out is that they do not necessarily need to even be aware of the model. It is only necessary to recognise unscientific theories. A scientist could even go through his whole career without ever needing to understand it. In most cases where an unscientific theory is put forward it is obvious as the theory looks and sounds like science fiction, and does not lead anywhere anyway because there is no way to test it. The confusion arises with the theory of evolution because the methods and standards from the study of history have been applied, but people still think of it a scientific theory and a scientific method.

Quote:
Research science is more like a prolonged game of chess between different workers in the field. There is inevitably a degree of advocacy involved.


I have not ruled any of this out. At no stage did I claim to present the whole picture of the tos and fros of the scientific community. I just talked about those aspects that are relevant to the topic at hand. You need to explain how you think this contradicts what I am saying. All I see is someone talking about a different topic.

Quote:
However if a researcher continues to cling to his theory long after the work has been invalidated, that's where pseudoscience creeps in.
 

Again, Kuhn (and I) would disagree with you. Read the whole book. It is very enlightening.

Also, lets try to avoid arguments along the lines of 'this famous guy said this, so the matter is settled'. If Kuhn makes what you think is a good argument, then demonstrate the usefullness of the argument here, rather than quoting his conclusion in the absence of context. If all you have are his conclusions, you should probably read the arguments to get a better understanding of what he is actually saying, as a lot of it is very subtle, like most of the points here.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #16 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:57am
 
The philosophy of science is not an area in which I'm fully comfortable.  In order  to expand our knowledge, we can't rely on that which can be falisified. It's like assembling a huge jigsaw puzzle. You might try a piece somewhere that may or may not be right in order that more pieces may also fit. In fact you have to do that or you'll get nowhere. Sometimes you have to remove whole sections because something else works better.

Nothing in Science is absolutely 100% perfectly. We are continually refining our ideas about virtually everything.

All we're doing is making the best mirror of perceived reality that we can make.

In order to teach science, you inevitable have to teach about research, and often about different schools of thought. There is no one true answer and there are no sacred cows either. The same goes for all branches of knowledge, and philosophy is by no means clear-cut either.

Do we regard something as half baked if it's 43.2% baked or 99.9% baked? You're suggesting throwing out all the loaves because they have minor imperfections, but in point of fact, that's as good as they are going to get.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2010 at 9:17am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #17 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 11:41am
 
Quote:
In order  to expand our knowledge, we can't rely on that which can be falisified. It's like assembling a huge jigsaw puzzle. You might try a piece somewhere that may or may not be right. In fact you have to do that or you'll get nowhere.


Falsifiable does not mean wrong or disprovable, though in practice it often is. What is means is that it would be possible to disprove it, if it is false. Testable is a closer synonym.

Quote:
You're suggesting throwing out all the loaves because they have minor imperfections, but inpoint of fact, that's as good as they are going to get.


Can you expolain how? Which loaves are being thrown out?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #18 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 12:24pm
 
So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #19 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 12:50pm
 
pjb05 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 12:24pm:
So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?


We discussed this over at Environment. There is a whole range of predictions that would be a consequence of Global warming from increased atmospheric CO2. If these could be shown not to occur then the theory could be falisified. One example is decreasing longwave radiation to space.

Even though we could do with another Earth, we don't have one, and we don't need one to validate the theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory for the reasons given already. Aprt from that, it can be observed to occur in more primitive species.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #20 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 4:48pm
 
This is what we get from this shoddy way of thinking:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-students-taught-humans-...

Quote:
PRIMARY school students are being taught that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together and that there's fossil evidence to prove it.

Fundamentalist Christians are hijacking religious instruction classes despite education experts saying Creationism and attempts to convert children to Christianity have no place in state schools.


It's tantamount to child abuse. It really is. These people should be arrested and tried for corrupting the education system of our kids.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #21 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 4:50pm
 
pjb05 wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 12:24pm:
So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?


Both are certain enough to be considered scientific facts by the vast majority of workers in the respective fields.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #22 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:44pm
 
Quote:
So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?


By controlling our emissions and observing the effect on climate, we are actually doing an experiment. Not a very good one of course. Plus, AGW is a collection (or prediction based on) many theories, most or all of which are scientific. If you want to test the greenhouse effect, build yourself a greenhouse.

Quote:
Aprt from that, it can be observed to occur in more primitive species.


I think you are confusing natural selection with evolution.

Quote:
This is what we get from this shoddy way of thinking:


No muso, that is what you get from your shoddy way of thinking. Not mine. Think about what you are saying.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #23 - Aug 1st, 2010 at 9:01pm
 
=1280659447] Quote:
So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?


By controlling our emissions and observing the effect on climate, we are actually doing an experiment. Not a very good one of course.

But were not controlling emissions. Plus even if we were we don't know what the temperature would be in the unchecked emssions scenario.

Plus, AGW is a collection (or prediction based on) many theories, most or all of which are scientific. If you want to test the greenhouse effect, build yourself a greenhouse.

So is evolution. You can do experiments which demonstate natural selection as well as numerous other observations which support the theory. Why isn't this scientific?

. [/quote]
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ziggy
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 131
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #24 - Aug 2nd, 2010 at 2:24am
 
Quote:
So now all a theory needs in order to be considered scientific is some part of it that is scientific?


What's the unscientific part? And don't you dare say evolution!  Tongue

Quote:
No. Just proving a point.


You didn't.


Quote:
No it wouldn't. The evolutionists would just say you need to wait a bit longer. Most confirmation don't happen till puberty. It would never actually be disproved.


???????????? I think we're at tangents here. This one I'll leave in limbo.

Quote:
I just don't see how the theory of creationism somehow makes evolution scientific. Can you explain it so it makes sense?


No cigar. I made sense. Your characterisation is what is senseless here, FD. I get the feeling that you just argue for argument's sake and couldn't care less about what you throw out.

Notwithstanding, Creationism makes a claim which would falsify evolution. Creationism would maintain that various creatures we see today were there when life came to be on this planet. You asked for falsifiability. This shows that evolution is falsifiable. AND youhave been given a number of other potential falsifiers. If you feel compelled to ask how evolution can be falsified again, just read back.

Quote:
I don't think the theory of evolution actually states that. The historical record can and will be simply chopped and changed as the evidence comes in. This has never disproved the theory of evolution, so I don;t see why it would in the future.


It's something that would falsify evolution. (I think you should look at that chicken cartoon very closely, FD. )

The theory implies that complex life today evolved from simpler life. Haldane's rabbit would falsify that. There is no way that the theory would be valid if Haldane's rabbit showed up- not unless, of course, you could show that it travelled through time somehow.

I would now iterate the potential falsifiers that I mentioned earlier, however, I'll save myself the time and only reiterate that you read back.

What you think is an alternative to the theory of evolution's explanation of how complex life on this planet came to be?

You don't believe that genetic variation and natural selection brought it about? Those are the two limbs evolution stands on. You accepted natural selection as scientific because you thought it was falsfiable. So what's unscientific and unfalsifiable about the remaining limb- genetic variation?  Tell me, what do you think natural selection works on?  Roll Eyes

You are playing with words but are completely overlooking substance. You made a false and absurd dichotomy.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #25 - Aug 2nd, 2010 at 7:38am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:44pm:
I think you are confusing natural selection with evolution.


Natural selection is the primary mechanism for evolution.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #26 - Aug 2nd, 2010 at 7:42am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:44pm:
If you want to test the greenhouse effect, build yourself a greenhouse.


I think you're confusing the greenhouse effect with greenhouses.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #27 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 8:44am
 
http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/theory-sufficient-genetic-potential.html

The first time I've read this particular gem of knowledge. It speaks volumes:

Quote:
The earth is an ark. The organisms currently living on the earth contain all the genetic information required to breed any of the organisms that have ever lived on the earth. This would require no beneficial mutations, just a careful and prolonged selective breeding program, and the exchange of DNA that often occurs naturally between different species. This genetic information has been available for the entire time that life has existed on earth.


I think we're wasting our time here talking about the finer points of the philosophy of science.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
culldav
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2020
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #28 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 12:23pm
 
Evolution and Creationism should not be taught at schools, because both theories have obvious fundamental flaws. Teaching these non-factual and flawed theories to young school students is paramount to psychological child abuse.

Creationism relies on a belief that there is an omnipotent being somewhere.

Evolution relies on the belief that species characteristics change over a period of time.

It was my understanding that scientists have proven that the species of human beings has a “missing-link” somewhere in it evolutionary history.

I believe, that until that Omnipotent being and missing link is found; then the theories of evolution and creationism should not be part of the school curriculum.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #29 - Aug 5th, 2010 at 2:48pm
 
Well that is the sort of nonsense we here from Creationists Culldav.

Evolution deserves to be taught as a theory, and creationism deserves to be shown as what some morons believe if they are so stupid that they think The Flintstones is a documentary.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Send Topic Print