Is evolution a fact?

[watsup]

Well you put a lot of faith in Jay Gould is all I can tell you.

Stephen Jay Gould is deceased now, but he wrote lots of scientific papers on evolution plus many books for the popular audience. And so, yes, I have a lot of TRUST in what he says about the judgement.

 

[devildavid]

That is not a reason to declare i do not understand basic science. Why did you make that claim? Who told you I do not understand basic science? I put in a lot of time understanding science. How dare you tell the forum I did not learn science.

Who are you naming as this scientific person?

When I studied Physics we always learned the source of all such claims.

It does not matter who made the claims. What matters is what the scientific information is. Science is not the claims of scientists.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Citing any individual is appealing to authority. Science is not a person. Something that is a scientific fact is not such because a scientist says so. Nothing is true because an individual says so.

I can't talk for your experience but this is part of my own. I have studied the important scientists and learned their claims and equations , etc. I do not recall each and every equation yet because I know they exist, I can rapidly look them up. When Einstein wrote his book, I busted my ass reading it trying to grasp all he said. I also studied Newton and other scientists. We even were told by the teachers to name those scientists. Education to be full is really important.

 

[devildavid]

Stephen Jay Gould is deceased now, but he wrote lots of scientific papers on evolution plus many books for the popular audience. And so, yes, I have a lot of TRUST in what he says about the judgement.

But what he says is only as good as the actual science behind it.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Stephen Jay Gould is deceased now, but he wrote lots of scientific papers on evolution plus many books for the popular audience. And so, yes, I have a lot of TRUST in what he says about the judgement.

At least you admit to appealing to authority. I too have some of his books. I read at least a dozen prior to opining on this topic. I had to first be prepared.

 

[devildavid]

I can't talk for your experience but this is part of my own. I have studied the important scientists and learned their claims and equations , etc. I do not recall each and every equation yet because I know they exist, I can rapidly look them up. When Einstein wrote his book, I busted my ass reading it trying to grasp all he said. I also studied Newton and other scientists. We even were told by the teachers to name those scientists. Education to be full is really important.

Science is not about scientists, it is about the content of the science. You study science by doing science. Did you ever have any labs?

 

[Robertinfremont]

But what he says is only as good as the actual science behind it.

When politicians talk of science, they normally learned law and not science. Some learned business. Science is not just an idea. It correctly applied works to our own benefit.

I heard my son today inform me that Plutonium was not present in nature. Actually he is somewhat correct due to it being very rare as one of the elements. But for the most part his correctness is due to Plutonium being manufactured today from Uranium.

So no matter what is alleged, until you do the original or confirming investigation one appeals to authority.

I named schopf and showed his book to readers here. I myself appeal to authority. E=MC2 is appealing to authority given I did not create that formula.

My major point in several words.

we tell others what others told to us.

We must decide who and what to believe.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Science is not about scientists, it is about the content of the science. You study science by doing science. Did you ever have any labs?

Great question and you do not comprehend very well.

I realize what Science is. I studied a lot of science for many long years. Far more than when in high school and college.
So of course I have had labs in the course of my education. It is a requirement for a number of courses.

 

[devildavid]

When politicians talk of science, they normally learned law and not science. Some learned business. Science is not just an idea. It correctly applied works to our own benefit.

I heard my son today inform me that Plutonium was not present in nature. Actually he is somewhat correct due to it being very rare as one of the elements. But for the most part his correctness is due to Plutonium being manufactured today from Uranium.

So no matter what is alleged, until you do the original or confirming investigation one appeals to authority.

I named schopf and showed his book to readers here. I myself appeal to authority. E=MC2 is appealing to authority given I did not create that formula.

My major point in several words.

we tell others what others told to us.

We must decide who and what to believe.

You don't understand what appealing to authority is so you have created your own faulty definition. Further discussion is fruitless.

E=MC2 is a formula from theoretical physics. It is not an appeal to authority. Anyone can challenge that equation.

You don't need to major in science to understand what is and isn't scientific.

 

[devildavid]

Great question and you do not comprehend very well.

I realize what Science is. I studied a lot of science for many long years. Far more than when in high school and college.
So of course I have had labs in the course of my education. It is a requirement for a number of courses.

And what did labs teach you?

 

[Robertinfremont]

And what did labs teach you?

In the physics labs we learned first hand that when we do the experiment we can issue a report first hand. We learned the correct way to handle experiments. Physics covers a wide range of things to experiment with and on.

In our Chemistry labs we made use of various chemicals and first hand watched them work as intended.

Will you ever take a lab course now that you know?

 

[Robertinfremont]

You don't understand what appealing to authority is so you have created your own faulty definition. Further discussion is fruitless.

E=MC2 is a formula from theoretical physics. It is not an appeal to authority. Anyone can challenge that equation.

You don't need to major in science to understand what is and isn't scientific.

It is very clear to me you are lost on what appeal to authority means. I did not inform you what to major in. And of course per agreement the energy formula of Einstein is not at all proven? Correct? Do you want to dispute how to calculate Energy? Einstein is the authority, not the formula.

 

[devildavid]

In the physics labs we learned first hand that when we do the experiment we can issue a report first hand. We learned the correct way to handle experiments. Physics covers a wide range of things to experiment with and on.

In our Chemistry labs we made use of various chemicals and first hand watched them work as intended.

Will you ever take a lab course now that you know?

I did have labs in my science courses. They taught me what science really is. And it isn't the words of scientists, it is their work, it is their labs, so to speak.

 

[devildavid]

It is very clear to me you are lost on what appeal to authority means. I did not inform you what to major in. And of course per agreement the energy formula of Einstein is not at all proven? Correct? Do you want to dispute how to calculate Energy? Einstein is the authority, not the formula.

You are wrong.. The formula is only right if it fits with actual observation, not because Einstein said so.

 

[watsup]

,

It is very clear to me you are lost on what appeal to authority means. I did not inform you what to major in. And of course per agreement the energy formula of Einstein is not at all proven? Correct? Do you want to dispute how to calculate Energy? Einstein is the authority, not the formula.

You need to get over this appeal to authority bit and debate the topic, per se. Boring!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Quantum science falls under theoretical science, which is not not same as scientific theories such as evolution.

I doubt many people take you seriously in these science discussions David, I certainly do not.

Consider this remark in a Wikipedia article about GR:

General relativity has a number of physical consequences. Some follow directly from the theory's axioms, whereas others have become clear only in the course of many years of research that followed Einstein's initial publication.

See David? once again you are emphatically wrong and unschooled in even the basic concepts of theoretical science you profess to know so much more than I.

You will find absolutely no mention of axioms in evolutionary theory.

A theory without axioms is not a theory, this is a foundational concept that you are clearly unfamiliar with.

Now once again please - what does the term "axiom" mean to you? do you think it differs from a "postulate? have you ever even come across either of these terms during your purported "education" in the sciences?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are wrong.. The formula is only right if it fits with actual observation, not because Einstein said so.

David the formula is never "right" - you of all people should know that one cannot prove a theory to be true, ask anyone here.

Theories can only be proven wrong, by observational data they cannot be proven right.

No wonder you post such claptrap, you are totally out of your depth.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I did have labs in my science courses. They taught me what science really is. And it isn't the words of scientists, it is their work, it is their labs, so to speak.

Everything rests on axioms, postulates - David you want to desperately to see the world as an objective machine, where everything follows strict laws and there is no room for uncertainty, everything is "based on facts" and so on.

This is a very outdated philosophical position, it was abandoned long ago but you seem unaware of the epistemological upheavals that have taken place in physics.

Your world view is absolutely out dated and out of step with modern science, why don't you want to admit this?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, this is not an appeal to authority. If I claim that a rock I drop will fall to the earth, is that an appeal to authority?

No, but it is an appeal to inductive reasoning.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Citing any individual is appealing to authority. Science is not a person. Something that is a scientific fact is not such because a scientist says so. Nothing is true because an individual says so.

How naive!

I hope then that unless you personally perform some experiment with equipment you personally calibrated that you will answer "I do not know" when asked myriad questions about science?

For example:

Do you know or just believe that the trajectory of light is bent in the proximity of large masses?

Of course if you're honest you must say that you only believe this to be true because you read it somewhere or someone else told you and you chose to believe, to trust that authority - so yes David 99.99999% of what you claim to "know" about science is in fact an appeal to authority.

Wake up David, this is getting very silly now.

 

[watsup]

I doubt many people take you seriously in these science discussions David, I certainly do not.

Consider this remark in a Wikipedia article about GR:



See David? once again you are emphatically wrong and unschooled in even the basic concepts of theoretical science you profess to know so much more than I.



A theory without axioms is not a theory, this is a foundational concept that you are clearly unfamiliar with.

Now once again please - what does the term "axiom" mean to you? do you think it differs from a "postulate? have you ever even come across either of these terms during your purported "education" in the sciences?

Actually, you are wrong. Axioms are primarily a MATHEMATIC construct and are not vital in science to construct a valid theory. Rather, as with all theories in science, to include ones regarding evolution, lt is EVIDENCE that remains vital.
And just so you know, it is you and not David whom most do not take seriously in these discussions,

 

[watsup]

Everything rests on axioms, postulates - David you want to desperately to see the world as an objective machine, where everything follows strict laws and there is no room for uncertainty, everything is "based on facts" and so on.

This is a very outdated philosophical position, it was abandoned long ago but you seem unaware of the epistemological upheavals that have taken place in physics.

Your world view is absolutely out dated and out of step with modern science, why don't you want to admit this?

Again ,you are simply wrong. Axioms and postulates are primarily mathematical terms. It is EVIDENCE that underlies any scientific theory.

 

[devildavid]

I can't talk for your experience but this is part of my own. I have studied the important scientists and learned their claims and equations , etc. I do not recall each and every equation yet because I know they exist, I can rapidly look them up. When Einstein wrote his book, I busted my ass reading it trying to grasp all he said. I also studied Newton and other scientists. We even were told by the teachers to name those scientists. Education to be full is really important.

Studying scientists is not the same as studying science.

 

[devildavid]

I doubt many people take you seriously in these science discussions David, I certainly do not.

Consider this remark in a Wikipedia article about GR:



See David? once again you are emphatically wrong and unschooled in even the basic concepts of theoretical science you profess to know so much more than I.



A theory without axioms is not a theory, this is a foundational concept that you are clearly unfamiliar with.

Now once again please - what does the term "axiom" mean to you? do you think it differs from a "postulate? have you ever even come across either of these terms during your purported "education" in the sciences?

General relativity falls under theoretical science. Evolution does not. You don't seem to be aware of that distinction. Only theoretical science uses axioms. All other scientific theories do not. They use facts. Please stop conflating these two types of science and the how they derive their theories.

Theoretical physics

 

[devildavid]

How naive!

I hope then that unless you personally perform some experiment with equipment you personally calibrated that you will answer "I do not know" when asked myriad questions about science?

For example:

Do you know or just believe that the trajectory of light is bent in the proximity of large masses?

Of course if you're honest you must say that you only believe this to be true because you read it somewhere or someone else told you and you chose to believe, to trust that authority - so yes David 99.99999% of what you claim to "know" about science is in fact an appeal to authority.

Wake up David, this is getting very silly now.

Science is about knowledge, not belief. Scientific knowledge does not depend on the scientists opinion, but on the work they do.