[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

When someone starts out by saying "Science does not use supporting evidence.," there really is no need to read the rest. You already know that the post is going to be pure nonsense.

Indeed...or if anyone states that a hypothesis comes from theory.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Oddly enough. No procedure or method is described here....

Try reading it, as stated there are many other web pages you can look it up on.

Suffice to say you posts show your total ignorance on the matter.

...I want YOUR understanding of it, not someone else's....

The definition and description provided suffice. I don't care for personal opinion in this - yours included.

1. What is there to collate?
2.You are defining science
3.How many tests are required?
4.Is there some point to wasting your time getting the same results?
5.How many different circumstances are required?
6.You are still trying to define 'science'
7.Is there a specific field involved?
8.The same test will produce the same results. Why would another identical test not produce the same result?
9.You seem to have a hard time nailing this down
10.A theory is an explanatory argument
11. So who designates an idea a 'hypothesis'? Who is this elite voting bloc in science? Why do they have so much power?

1. The data
2. Nope, just scientific "method"
3. Until all chance or random elements are deemed to have been eliminated - this was explained to you. You're just being obtuse
4. Confirmation - again you don't understand the concept
5. How many possible different circumstances are there?
6. Nope - method
7. All of them
8. See 5
9. Nope - see the Wiki page
10.Nope - that's you misunderstanding of the word
11.The scientist formulating it. His/Her peers. Consensus.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

No kidding. It is kind of interesting to see how science can continue to be portrayed as the exact opposite of what it really is, though. It's a bit like a story about taking Sasquatch to the doggie groomer and making him all nice and soft and silky, then claiming logical fallacies when someone points out that Sasquatch is a legend and no one could possibly have taken him to a doggie groomer.

They are just being awkward. They know they lost the argument.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending

When someone starts out by saying "Science does not use supporting evidence.," there really is no need to read the rest. You already know that the post is going to be pure nonsense.

Science does nothing else. What a pointless and boring thread.

Being dismissive might be an informal logical fallacy, but it doesn't mean that it isn't correct. In this case, since the beginning statement is so distinctly and contrary to the very definition of science, and against all established scientific methodology, it might be dismissive, but it certainly is correct.

No kidding. It is kind of interesting to see how science can continue to be portrayed as the exact opposite of what it really is, though. It's a bit like a story about taking Sasquatch to the doggie groomer and making him all nice and soft and silky, then claiming logical fallacies when someone points out that Sasquatch is a legend and no one could possibly have taken him to a doggie groomer.

Indeed...or if anyone states that a hypothesis comes from theory.

They are just being awkward. They know they lost the argument.

Isn't this rich!

Four dudes with a shallow pop understanding of the subject jeering at two dudes presenting them with the profound philosophy of the subject!

Classic IT chat.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

When someone starts out by saying "Science does not use supporting evidence.," there really is no need to read the rest. You already know that the post is going to be pure nonsense.

I have already demonstrated why science does not use supporting evidence. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Being dismissive might be an informal logical fallacy, but it doesn't mean that it isn't correct.

Yes it does.

In this case, since the beginning statement is so distinctly and contrary to the very definition of science, and against all established scientific methodology, it might be dismissive, but it certainly is correct.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

No kidding. It is kind of interesting to see how science can continue to be portrayed as the exact opposite of what it really is, though. It's a bit like a story about taking Sasquatch to the doggie groomer and making him all nice and soft and silky, then claiming logical fallacies when someone points out that Sasquatch is a legend and no one could possibly have taken him to a doggie groomer.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Indeed...or if anyone states that a hypothesis comes from theory.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

...a theory is an explanatory argument. It can come from anywhere....

No it's not and no it can't
You don't understand the word "theory" and its meaning

...all theories begin as circular arguments....

No they don't
Again you don't understand the word "theory" in a scientific sense

...you believe a theory is something that is proven somehow, and that a theory is proven using supporting evidence....

No, rather accepted by the scientific community - note this doesn't and often isn't universal acceptance.
And yes, supporting evidence plays a huge part...it is collated, analysed...from different sources, sometimes using different methods to act as mutual support.

...a large number of people believe that Jesus Christ existed and is the Son of God. They have mountains of supporting evidence....

No they don't, unless you're referring to the Bible as a "mountain" now

...they have tested it through prayers being answered...

Why would they need more than ONE prayer to test it. Wouldn't it be a waste of time to analyse the results of more than one prayer to get the same result ?


Actually the results of prayers would be evidence of god...what is your data?
Have you collated any?
Have you collated data from different sources...under different circumstances...what different circumstances are there?
How would this "theory" be falsifiable ?

...a large number of people believe that no god or gods exist. They have mountains of supporting evidence....

Oh really, what evidence exists that NO god exists ?

...they have tested it through finding seeming conflicts within the Bible, and other books and artifacts. There is consensus. Therefore, this qualifies as 'science' by your definition...

What "other" books

Are you saying that the fact that the Bible is a complete joke when it comes to anything like accuracy or credibility is somehow proof that god (any god) doesn't exist ?

Scientists seek to further understanding of the world/universe.
Analyzing a book written by ignorant, bronze age, goat herders is hardly doing that

Not that science would seek to prove a negative anyway.

There is NO proof of god...other than the often claimed "I just know it".

...by your definition science must necessarily be a paradox. If this is so, science cannot be enhancing knowledge in any way, for it builds irrational arguments....

Nope it is not

...he designed the mounts and built them using the ideas (and the theory for it) provided by the pilots....

Hard to accept you're wrong huh?
No, the designer of those low level altimeters did not come from the aircrew - that was invented by the movie. Again this is what you get when you base your "facts" from watching movies.
Did you not even read that link ?

...they are theories, even in the scientific sense. They were falsifiable theories....

No they're not, once again you just think a "theory" is an idea thought up by someone.

...the theory of relativity was developed while Einstein dreamed of riding a beam of light in his sleep. He wrote about this in his journals. The theory is falsifiable. It has a null hypothesis. It has been tested multiple times and in multiple ways. The theory still survives, however, it could be falsified tomorrow by a single bit of conflicting evidence.

Possibly, I don't know where Einstein got his idea from - but that wasn't the theory, you're confusing theory and inspiration now
Yes the theory of relativity can be falsified - just like all scientific theories

...the 'scientific method' as you describe it depends on supporting evidence, consensus, and some elite voting bloc to convert this evidence into some kind of proof you call a 'theory'....

No, scientific method describes the process/method by which a scientist gathers data.
No-one converts the data into anything. It's just data...and each new batch of data from other sources and /or other experiments provides supporting data.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

...religions depend on supporting evidence...

Nope, religion denies evidence - religion claims to KNOW the answer without need of proof.

...there is no difference between your 'scientific method' and what any religion does to justify their religion....

Religion starts with the "truth" and bends "evidence" to support it
Science starts with evidence and seeks to come up with an explanation - whatever it is. Christians repeatedly say they don't care what the evidence is, they will still keep believing in their god.

...the Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a religion. It is not falsifiable....

Respectively: Yes it is. No it's not. Yes it is.

...I am not making the argument that alchemy was or is a science....

Then why bring it up ?

...science isn't knowledge. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all...

Science is a method.
Yes it produces falsifiable theories and there are areas in which we will never truly "know" the answer (unless your believe in one of the multitudes of gods)
And what we do know through science can and probably will change - but science still provides the best explanations we have. I prefer this over a book written thousands of years ago by ignorant men.

....we don't understand how the universe works....

No we don't, and perhaps we never will - but we have a far better understanding of it that the writers of the Bible who thought the sun goes round the Earth and that stars can fall the earth

...as far as we know, the universe is infinite in size...

OK

...for many hundreds of years, it was considered scientific knowledge that the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun and other planets orbited the Earth....

Yes, this "knowledge" is to be found in the Bible and people were burned to death challenging it

...all you are really discussing here is theories, each of which was or is falsifiable....

Yes

...never did. I specifically mentioned the event taking place in the Far East...

You spoke of alchemists and burning down his/their own lab

You were corrected - that Western alchemists had nothing to do with the discovery of gunpowder.

In case you're about to invent a Chinese alchemist:


"...although it is not known precisely by whom gunpowder was discovered, most historians agree that gunpowder's origins were in China due to the amount of archaeological evidence and historical documents that exist predating others by centuries..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder

...personally, I don't find it just hard, painstaking, laborious, or even particularly repetitive...

Not meaning to be rude but I'm not interested in your personal opinions about science.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Try reading it, as stated there are many other web pages you can look it up on.

I did. No procedure or method was described.

Suffice to say you posts show your total ignorance on the matter.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

The definition and description provided suffice. I don't care for personal opinion in this - yours included.

It didn't. YOU are making the claim. YOU need to define the 'method'.

1. The data

Not an answer. What is there to collate?

2. Nope, just scientific "method"

You are defining science, but you won't describe the method or procedure you are claiming that science is.

3. Until all chance or random elements are deemed to have been eliminated - this was explained to you. You're just being obtuse

You never can, therefore by your definition, nothing can ever become a theory.

4. Confirmation - again you don't understand the concept

Performing the same test produces the same result. You are confirming nothing.

5. How many possible different circumstances are there?

Not an answer. How many different circumstances are required?

6. Nope - method

You are still trying to define science.

7. All of them

Then there is nothing to collate. I think you don't understand what collating means.

9. Nope - see the Wiki page

Cop-out. Wikipedia summarily dismissed. It does not define science or the 'method' you claim. YOU list the method.

10.Nope - that's you misunderstanding of the word

You have not been able to define a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument.

11.The scientist formulating it. His/Her peers. Consensus.

So the scientist himself proves his own 'hypothesis' is not a 'proven theory'???
You mention 'peers'. Who is this elite voting bloc in science? Why do they have so much power?

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Argument of the stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

Nope, your idea that a hypothesis comes from a theory = you don't know the meaning of the words.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Nope, religion denies evidence - religion claims to KNOW the answer without need of proof.




Religion starts with the "truth" and bends "evidence" to support it
Science starts with evidence and seeks to come up with an explanation - whatever it is. Christians repeatedly say they don't care what the evidence is, they will still keep believing in their god.



Respectively: Yes it is. No it's not. Yes it is.




Then why bring it up ?



Science is a method.
Yes it produces falsifiable theories and there are areas in which we will never truly "know" the answer (unless your believe in one of the multitudes of gods)
And what we do know through science can and probably will change - but science still provides the best explanations we have. I prefer this over a book written thousands of years ago by ignorant men.




No we don't, and perhaps we never will - but we have a far better understanding of it that the writers of the Bible who thought the sun goes round the Earth and that stars can fall the earth




OK




Yes, this "knowledge" is to be found in the Bible and people were burned to death challenging it




Yes




You spoke of alchemists and burning down his/their own lab

You were corrected - that Western alchemists had nothing to do with the discovery of gunpowder.

In case you're about to invent a Chinese alchemist:


"...although it is not known precisely by whom gunpowder was discovered, most historians agree that gunpowder's origins were in China due to the amount of archaeological evidence and historical documents that exist predating others by centuries..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder





Not meaning to be rude but I'm not interested in your personal opinions about science.

No religion has supporting evidence.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

I did....

Clearly you didn't

...argument of the Stone fallacy....

Call your ignorance what you will

...it didn't....

It did/does

Read it

1. Not an answer. What is there to collate?
2. You are defining science...
3. You never can, therefore by your definition, nothing can ever become a theory
4. Performing the same test produces the same result. You are confirming nothing
5. Not an answer. How many different circumstances are required?
6. You are still trying to define science
7. Then there is nothing to collate. I think you don't understand what collating means
8. ???
9. Wikipedia summarily dismissed. It does not define science or the 'method' you claim
9. You have not been able to define a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument
10.So the scientist himself proves his own 'hypothesis' is not a 'proven theory'? You mention 'peers'. Who is this elite voting bloc in science? Why do they have so much power?

1. The data from observable experimentatio
2. Nope, just scientific "method"
3. Yes they can, and yes we DO have scientific theory - such as the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity etc. All these theories had to be thoroughly tested before becoming accepted
4. What if it doesn't ?
5. How many possible circumstances are there ? Think about it. If two scientists do the same experiement on opposite sides of the world, how many possible ways might it be done differently ?
Now what if 10,000 scientists do the same experiment - how many different circumstances might there be ?
6. Nope - method
7. There is the data to collate - and some might not match other data
8. What happened to No 8
9. As stated, go find another web page of your choosing on scientific method
10.No it's not...it's a lot more than that
11. No it's not...many scientists think they have a proven theory but are torn apart by peer review when they publish their paper.
Some are not, some write papers that become accepted by the global scientific community...after thorough testing is performed around the globe.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

No religion has supporting evidence.

Might you want to go further and drop the "supporting" bit ?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

No it's not and no it can't
You don't understand the word "theory" and its meaning

A theory is an explanatory argument.

No they don't
Again you don't understand the word "theory" in a scientific sense

The definition of a theory does not change inside or outside of science.

No, rather accepted by the scientific community - note this doesn't and often isn't universal acceptance.
And yes, supporting evidence plays a huge part...it is collated, analysed...from different sources, sometimes using different methods to act as mutual support.

You are still allowing religion to be declared 'science'.

No they don't, unless you're referring to the Bible as a "mountain" now
Why would they need more than ONE prayer to test it. Wouldn't it be a waste of time to analyse the results of more than one prayer to get the same result ?
Actually the results of prayers would be evidence of god...what is your data?
Have you collated any?
Have you collated data from different sources...under different circumstances...what different circumstances are there?

I mentioned more than just the Bible as supporting evidence. Fixation like this is a fallacy. I assume you are using the word 'collate' as a buzzword. Define your meaning of 'collate'. Any religion does combine difference sources of data.

How would this "theory" be falsifiable ?

??? WTF??? YOU said that falsifiability is not a requirement! Make up your mind, dude!

Oh really, what evidence exists that NO god exists ?

I just listed it. Pay attention.

Scientists seek to further understanding of the world/universe.
Analyzing a book written by ignorant, bronze age, goat herders is hardly doing that

So...you are saying the Bible is not of this world? Must be truly the word of God then!

Not that science would seek to prove a negative anyway.

Attempting to prove no god exists is not attempting to prove a negative. It is, however, attempting to force proof of a negative. That's called an argument of ignorance fallacy.

There is NO proof of god...other than the often claimed "I just know it".

Doesn't need to be.

Hard to accept you're wrong huh?
No, the designer of those low level altimeters did not come from the aircrew - that was invented by the movie. Again this is what you get when you base your "facts" from watching movies.
Did you not even read that link ?

Yup. I did. It properly gives credit for his contribution to the system, but the idea came from the pilots.

No they're not, once again you just think a "theory" is an idea thought up by someone.

Never said that. A theory is an explanatory argument, not an idea.

Possibly, I don't know where Einstein got his idea from - but that wasn't the theory, you're confusing theory and inspiration now

Nope. He even wrote about it in his journals. The Theory of Relativity came from a dream.

Yes the theory of relativity can be falsified - just like all scientific theories

???WTF??? Paradox! You keep arguing that falsifiability is NOT required, then you turn around and say it is???

No, scientific method describes the process/method by which a scientist gathers data.

Oh...so NOW you redefining 'method' to a way to gather data??? Does he have to use a test tube, is a laboratory required? Have you ever even HEARD of phenomenology?

No-one converts the data into anything. It's just data...and each new batch of data from other sources and /or other experiments provides supporting data.

What about conflicting data? I think you are painting yourself into another corner here! :lamo

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

...Performing the same test produces the same result. You are confirming nothing....

Let's say I have a theory that leaving for work 5 minutes earlier than my normal time will result in me arriving at work 15 minutes earlier due to the traffic patterns and build up.

Except it's not a theory at all, it;s just some wild idea I got in the tub, or in my sleep or watching a movie about WWII bombers...
Nevertheless I decide to work on this ...
I study traffic reports ...
I study on-line maps...
I contact schools to check on opening times and the start times of their bus fleets...
I contact local businesses to check on opening times
I monitor and collate data on my average arrival time at work.

I come up with a hypothesis that leaving for work 5 minutes early does indeed get me to work (this time I allow a margin for error) 10-15 mins early.

I now test it and leave for work 5 mins early and get to work 12 minutes earlier than my normal average arrival time.

Eureka - according you you this in now proven
No need to repeat the test - just to get the same result
I mean what other circumstances can there be ???

But I decide to ignore you and do the same test the next day and only arrive at work 7 minutes earlier.

Perhaps I need to collate more data ... run more experiments.
Like collate data for different days
For weekdays v weekend days...or holidays
Collate data for different shift start times
Collate data for when it's raining, snowy, dark, icy, windy...

And just think I started of questioning just how many circumstances there could be and why on earth I would need to repeat a test....

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

1. The data from observable experimentatio

Not an answer. What is there to collate? Is there an experiment that is not observable?

2. Nope, just scientific "method"

This stupid play on words summarily dismissed.

3. Yes they can, and yes we DO have scientific theory

But according to your own definition, that would not be possible.

- such as the theory of evolution,

Not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. It remains a circular argument, and a religion.

the theory of gravity,

There is such thing as a theory of gravity.

the theory of relativity etc.

A falsifiable theory, therefore one of science. It did not arise out of supporting evidence.

All these theories had to be thoroughly tested before becoming accepted

How much testing? What the magick threshold?

4. What if it doesn't ?

Then it's not the same test.

5. How many possible circumstances are there ? Think about it. If two scientists do the same experiement on opposite sides of the world, how many possible ways might it be done differently ?

Zero.

Now what if 10,000 scientists do the same experiment - how many different circumstances might there be ?
Zero.

7. There is the data to collate - and some might not match other data

Not an answer. Define 'collate'.

9. As stated, go find another web page of your choosing on scientific method

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is not defined by a web page. It is defined by philosophy, which also gives the reasoning for that definition. So far, I find your reasoning seriously flawed. It is riddled with undefined words, mysterious 'method's that you can't define, allows religion to be declared science, and ignores the problems of phenomenology concerning observations and data. You also seem to attempting to make some magical reference to some kind of 'proof' or 'sanctification' that you cannot seem to specify the parameters for. You then make a vague cop-out to web pages as authoritative references. You can't describe any required size of the 'consensus' required. You seem to figure that a science is a 'paper' of some kind that must undergo some kind of publishing procedure which you haven't even specified. Then you wave your hands around some magick number of randU to describe the number of scientists required to declare a 'hypothesis' a 'theory'. You ignore and deny the paradoxes caused by your own definition of science.

Sorry. I just don't buy it.

I'll stick to the one currently used in philosophy:

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No people, no consensus, no supporting evidence, no credentials, no political organization to 'bless' it, no religion possible in it.

A theory is an explanatory argument. Every theory of science explains something. Every nonscientific theory explains something. The definition of a theory doesn't change because of science.

A hypothesis explains nothing. A hypothesis is a question that stems from an existing theory, such as the null hypothesis. The definition of a hypothesis doesn't change because of science.

An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion, and is free of fallacy.

A fallacy is an error in logic just like an error in mathematics.

Logic is a closed functional system, defined by axioms, just like mathematics. Science is an open functional system. The only requirement of a theory of science is that it be falsifiable. Philosophy is an open functional system. The only requirement of a philosophical argument is that no outside references are allowed other than the agreed upon predicates before the argument commences (what are called 'facts').

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

A theory is an explanatory argument...the definition of a theory does not change inside or outside of science....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

...you are still allowing religion to be declared 'science'....

No, religion denies science

...I mentioned more than just the Bible as supporting evidence....

More than the Bible as supporting evidence for Christianity ? Is that what you mean ?

Well I guess you do have all the personal testimonies of the people who profess that god has spoken to them or "revealed" himself to them.

If you want to regard that as "evidence".

What else you got ?

...you said that falsifiability is not a requirement!

No I didn't....dude

...I just listed it. Pay attention....

Must have missed it....along with the evidence that he DOES exist.

Please would you be so good as to summarize it?

....so you are saying the Bible is not of this world? ....

No, that it was written by bronze age, ignorant, goat herders......pay attention

...attempting to prove no god exists is not attempting to prove a negative....

Err...yes it is

Key word is "prove NO god exists"

No god = negative

...doesn't need to be....

Speaking for yourself ?

...but the idea came from the pilots....

No it didn't
You're stuck in denial here

To quote: "...the film has fun with dramatic licence: a night watching showgirls dance in spotlights at a London theatre gives Gibson the idea for the Dam Busters’ spotlamp altimeter. In real life, this was designed by Ben Lockspeiser of the ministry of aircraft production – who went on to be the first president of the council of Cern...."

The pilots did NOT come up with the idea - that was invented by the movie for people like you to believe. Do you understand the term "dramatic licence" ?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/aug/07/the-dam-busters-film-reel-history



You just can't admit being wrong can you

...never said that. A theory is an explanatory argument, not an idea....

But a theory can start with a dream...or watching a theater show...and these aren't just "ideas"
You said a hypothesis comes from a theory....this is completely wrong.

...he even wrote about it in his journals. The Theory of Relativity came from a dream....

No it didn't...in the same way that the theory of gravity didn't start with an apple falling on Newton's head (which it probably didn't)

Again you confuse inspiration with origin.

The theory of relativity came from many, many, many....many hours of laborious work.

...you keep arguing that falsifiability is NOT required...

Really....?
In what post ?

...you redefining 'method' to a way to gather data???

It doesn't matter how the data is produced...it matters how it is gathered and collated.

The scientific method applies (indeed must apply) if results are produced with a test tube and flame or by empirical evidence studies.

You are being confused by your own ignorance.

...what about conflicting data?

Exactly !!!!

Cause for repeating the experiment wouldn't you say ?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

For the following response, since you haven't defined 'collate'. I will assume you mean 'analyze' instead.

Let's say I have a theory that leaving for work 5 minutes earlier than my normal time will result in me arriving at work 15 minutes earlier due to the traffic patterns and build up.

Okay.

Except it's not a theory at all,

Yes it is. It describes why you will get to work 15 minutes earlier. It's an explanatory argument.

it;s just some wild idea I got in the tub, or in my sleep or watching a movie about WWII bombers...

Works for me! It's still a theory!

Nevertheless I decide to work on this ...
I study traffic reports ...
I study on-line maps...
I contact schools to check on opening times and the start times of their bus fleets...
I contact local businesses to check on opening times
I monitor and collate data on my average arrival time at work.

Sounds like you are doing a lot of tests to see if your the theory is false. You are testing the null hypothesis with this research.

I come up with a hypothesis that leaving for work 5 minutes early does indeed get me to work (this time I allow a margin for error) 10-15 mins early.

WRONG. You already HAD that theory. Nothing has changed. It is not a hypothesis. It is the SAME THEORY.

I now test it and leave for work 5 mins early and get to work 12 minutes earlier than my normal average arrival time.

Good. You now have a theory of science. The theory has survived tests against its null hypothesis and it continues to survive.

Eureka - according you you this in now proven

No theory is ever proven. I have never said any theory is proven. I have said quite the opposite. Pay attention.

No need to repeat the test - just to get the same result

You can't. You don't have control over the other cars, the roadway surface, the weather, etc.

But I decide to ignore you and do the same test the next day and only arrive at work 7 minutes earlier.

Oh well. The theory has now been falsified. It is utterly destroyed.

Perhaps I need to collate more data ... run more experiments.
Like collate data for different days
For weekdays v weekend days...or holidays
Collate data for different shift start times
Collate data for when it's raining, snowy, dark, icy, windy...

Makes no difference. The theory is utterly destroyed. You will have to create a new theory.

And just think I started of questioning just how many circumstances there could be and why on earth I would need to repeat a test....

As I said...it was not possible to repeat the test. However, a test was conducted upon the null hypothesis that resulted in the falsification of the theory. It is destroyed. It is gone.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending

No it's not and no it can't

Yes it is and yes it can.

Deleted 'you just don't understand' mantra

No they don't... deleted 'you just don't understand' mantra

Yes, they do start as circular arguments.

... deleted 'appeal to science czars'... And yes, supporting evidence plays a huge part...it is collated, analysed...from different sources, sometimes using different methods to act as mutual support.

No it doesn't and no it is not. Science doesn't deal with supporting evidence; it only deals with conflicting evidence... science is a set of falsifiable theories.

No they don't, unless you're referring to the Bible as a "mountain" now

Yes, they do have mountains of supporting evidence.

deleted 'mockery' mantra

...deleted 'mockery' mantra

Oh really, what evidence exists that NO god exists?

Prayers not being answered (for starters)

What "other" books

Maybe history books? Other ancient writings? Does it even matter?

Are you saying that the fact

That's not what a fact is...

that the Bible is a complete joke when it comes to anything like accuracy or credibility is somehow proof that god (any god) doesn't exist ?

I've seen many atheists assert such argumentation...

Scientists seek to further understanding of the world/universe.

They test falsifiable theories.

...deleted 'lack of intelligence mantra'... deleted irrational reasoning regarding scientists and science since you have defined science into a paradox.

There is NO proof of god...other than the often claimed "I just know it".

Yes, religion is faith based. It is circular argumentation. There doesn't need to be proof.

Nope it is not

According to how you yourself defined it, yes it is.

...deleted 'self-declared victory' mantra

No, the designer of those low level altimeters did not come from the aircrew - that was invented by the movie. Again this is what you get when you base your "facts" from watching movies.
Did you not even read that link ?

Holy links are worthless... learn what a fact is...

No they're not, once again you just think a "theory" is an idea thought up by someone.

A theory is an explanatory argument.

Possibly, I don't know where Einstein got his idea from - but that wasn't the theory, you're confusing theory and inspiration now
Yes the theory of relativity can be falsified - just like all scientific theories

No he's not... and agreed.

No, scientific method describes the process/method by which a scientist gathers data.
No-one converts the data into anything. It's just data...and each new batch of data from other sources and /or other experiments provides supporting data.

Hello paradox city... which one is it dude?
1) data is just data (science doesn't prove anything)
2) data gets converted into a proof (science proves things)

Take me down to the paradox city
Where the logic is sloppy and the claims are irrational
Oh won't you please spare my soul

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

...deleted Holy Link...

You already used that link. Wikipedia is discarded on sight. You cannot use that as an authoritative reference with me.

Philosophy defines science, not Wikipedia.

No, religion denies science

Oops! You just wrote off theories of science that came from Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Heisenberg, Faraday, Maxwell, and a host of others. :doh

...deleted Mantras 21...24...
Key word is "prove NO god exists"

Not possible.

No god = negative

Not the definition of a negative argument. You really are new at this logic stuff, aren't you?

...deleted off topic content...
But a theory can start with a dream...or watching a theater show...and these aren't just "ideas"

That's right.

...deleted Mantra 21...
No it didn't.

Yes it did. Einstein even wrote about it in his journals.

.in the same way that the theory of gravity didn't start with an apple falling on Newton's head (which it probably didn't)

There is no theory of gravity in science. Apples falling on Newton are irrelevant.

Again you confuse inspiration with origin.

Not at all. Theories are inspirations. That IS their origin.

The theory of relativity came from many, many, many....many hours of laborious work.

WRONG. The TESTS took that long, not the creation of the theory itself. Tests are still be conducted against this theory. So far, it continues to survive.

It doesn't matter how the data is produced...it matters how it is gathered and collated.

Welcome to your new paradox. Which is it, dude?

The scientific method applies (indeed must apply) if results are produced with a test tube and flame or by empirical evidence studies.

So how did science ever occur without the test tube??? Do you need a lab coat too? (hmmm. I guess I MUST be a scientist! I have a lab coat, a set of test tubes, and flames...hmmmm.) Tell me, what theory is the result of having this gear?

Exactly !!!!

Cause for repeating the experiment wouldn't you say ?

No. You have your results. Repeating the experiment will give you the same results.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Hello paradox city... which one is it dude?
1) data is just data (science doesn't prove anything)
2) data gets converted into a proof (science proves things)

Good catch! Didn't see that one! I have included it in my records for this guy. He now has three:

1) Theories of science are developed through a 'method', using supporting evidence.
2) Theories of science must be falsifiable.

1) It doesn't matter how data is produced.
2) It matters how it is gathered and 'collated'.

1) data is just data (science doesn't prove anything)
2) data gets converted into a proof (science proves things)

Now comes his denials and the irrationality that follow them.:lamo

 

[crazyme]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Darwinism: Science or Dogma?

David Berlinski


Stephen Meyer


Jonathan Wells


Is Darwinism science or scientific dogma?

David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, and Jonathan Wells argue in the videos posted above, and argue persuasively, that it is dogma.

What do you think of their arguments?

Do you have a counterargument?

Or do you believe in Darwinism as a matter of scientific faith?

Members are invited to think critically about the prevailing view of Life on Earth

...​

My opinion? Philosophy.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]