RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (605) < ... 587 588 589 590 591 [592] 593 594 595 596 597 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,11:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 25 2017,10:09)
A new buzz-phrase: "inclusive fitness"?

..........

Giving things "fitness" names has a way of even more complicating things.

"Inclusive fitness" was defined* in 1964 by W.D. Hamilton in the middle of the kin selection / altruism debate.  This is neither new nor a buzzword, but a very important and clarifying concept with major implications**.

*"Define": - state the word, and explain exactly what you mean by it.  I realize that this is a novel concept for you, Gary, but it really is at the heart of doing good science.  You might try it sometime.

**All of which are lost on you, Gary.

I never cease to be amazed at how little you care about making yourself look like an uninformed idiot almost every time you spout off about something.  Doesn't it ever occur to you that it might be worth checking up on your facts before talking about things?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 447
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,13:59   

From the Sandwalk comments;

 
Quote
JassWednesday, March 22, 2017 4:51:00 PM
"It's not a lie if you believe it" -someone once said...

I often say that ( to some) "...it's not a lie if you want to believe it..." However, it is an unacceptable lie if you want to deceive others because you chose to believe a lie and manipulate others to believe it...

Since there is no system to make public deceivers accountable to society, anybody can publish any shit he wants under the protective umbrella of "science" and he gets away with that whether it is true or false...with one exception: ID. If they publish something even with experimental evidence that can't be denied, it's always wrong, a lie or deceiving...

This is what's wrong and I'll fight it to death....


Does Jass = Gaulin? It sounds like it to me.

For "Jass's" information, nobody from the ID side has ever done an experiment, ever.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,15:36   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Mar. 25 2017,13:59)
From the Sandwalk comments;

 
Quote
JassWednesday, March 22, 2017 4:51:00 PM
"It's not a lie if you believe it" -someone once said...

I often say that ( to some) "...it's not a lie if you want to believe it..." However, it is an unacceptable lie if you want to deceive others because you chose to believe a lie and manipulate others to believe it...

Since there is no system to make public deceivers accountable to society, anybody can publish any shit he wants under the protective umbrella of "science" and he gets away with that whether it is true or false...with one exception: ID. If they publish something even with experimental evidence that can't be denied, it's always wrong, a lie or deceiving...

This is what's wrong and I'll fight it to death....


Does Jass = Gaulin? It sounds like it to me.

For "Jass's" information, nobody from the ID side has ever done an experiment, ever.

Don't think so - Gary comments under his own name there and Jass never pushes Gary's nonsense.  Jass' English is better too.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,17:38   

I was studying laminar flow nozzles then ran across this gem of an experiment worth mentioning:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p08_KlTKP50

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,18:30   

And I wanted to mention this video that recently came in via email from the local STEM network. It starts off with an excellent explanation of theorems, formulas to describe basic principals and how that relates to the modeling process:

The Modeling Method: A Synopsis
modelinginstruction.org/sample-page/synopsis-of-modeling-instruction/

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,18:46   

Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 25 2017,11:37)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 25 2017,10:09)
A new buzz-phrase: "inclusive fitness"?

..........

Giving things "fitness" names has a way of even more complicating things.

"Inclusive fitness" was defined* in 1964 by W.D. Hamilton in the middle of the kin selection / altruism debate.  This is neither new nor a buzzword, but a very important and clarifying concept with major implications**.

*"Define": - state the word, and explain exactly what you mean by it.  I realize that this is a novel concept for you, Gary, but it really is at the heart of doing good science.  You might try it sometime.

**All of which are lost on you, Gary.

I never cease to be amazed at how little you care about making yourself look like an uninformed idiot almost every time you spout off about something.  Doesn't it ever occur to you that it might be worth checking up on your facts before talking about things?

It only goes to show the problem I'm up against.

And does that name by chance include a gay population, without which all of humanity is somehow less fit?

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2017,22:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 25 2017,18:30)
And I wanted to mention this video that recently came in via email from the local STEM network. It starts off with an excellent explanation of theorems, formulas to describe basic principals and how that relates to the modeling process:

The Modeling Method: A Synopsis
modelinginstruction.org/sample-page/synopsis-of-modeling-instruction/

"Basic principals" = caustic school administrators?  Principles!

The video doesn't fully describe modeling (it's more about teaching through student activities), but it does so enough to show that they would not approve of what you do.  Yes, they use the word modelling (which seems to be as far as you went in paying attention), but note their description of the modelling CYCLE, including testing (i.e. ground-truthing).

Yes, inclusive fitness includes such things as homosexuals furthering their genetic success by helping to raise their own nephews and nieces, or less directly by just being part of a broader group that reproduces especially successfully because everyone contributes to raising everyone else's kids.  (This could usefully be called the "successful village" phenomenon.  Aso, this is not included in "inclusive fitness" by chance but by intention and by definition.)  

However, it is uncommon at best to talk about inclusive fitness in terms of the success of the whole species, rather than groups within it, so your statement "without which all of humanity is somewhat less fit" falls outside most or all of the topic of "inclusive fitness".

The problem you are up against is you.

Laminar flow fountains are very cool indeed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....nV5DBSo (in French, but great)
& for the fountains at the Burj Al Arab hotel in Abu Dhabi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gLjV6Ss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....l49iAJ8

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2017,16:24   

Darn principal/principle typo! I better reset my autopilot, by looking up that one next time I use the word again.

Giving things you cannot explain "fitness" names is not the same as explaining how something works.

I earlier watched (and liked) the video from France and almost all other videos for making one, though it's not exactly what I'm working on. You would likely need a magnifying glass to carefully observe one of mine in operation. It's for an industrial machine I'm developing.

Honorable mention:

Laminar versus turbulent flow through a kitchen faucet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....60iUq2I

Physics of Life - The Reynolds Number and Flow Around Objects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....hY&t=4s

Low Reynolds Number Flow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....&t=222s

Laminar Flow Fountain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....kX0WzCo

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2017,16:45   

Good luck with your laminar flow stuff.  It's likely to be way more productive than your ID nonsense, and certainly more interesting.  

Quote
Giving things you cannot explain "fitness" names is not the same as explaining how something works.
 
Now there you go again, displaying your stupidity for all to see.  Naming is certainly not tantamount to explaining, but that's not what has happened.  Hamilton provided a definition, with math and expository writing explaining how it worked, and he also provided natural examples.  It has since been backed up with many more field studies, many lab experiments, and more mathematics - I think there's a big section on it in Martin Nowak's book on mathematics of evolution ["Evolutionary Dynamics"] that I recommended to you a while ago.  It is a great example of an initial hypothesis that has become a well established theory.  It is well explained, well understood (other than by you) and is not an example of either just slapping a name on something or something that is not well understood.  

Ignorantly slapping names on something and falsely claiming to have provided an explanation is what you do ("intelligence", "design", "intelligent design", etc.)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2017,16:56   

Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2017,16:45)
Hamilton provided a definition, with math and expository writing explaining how it worked, and he also provided natural examples.

Then you should be easily be able to explain the underlying basic principles that cause some to be gay while others are not.

This is supposed to be one of the biggest remaining mysteries in all of science.  Show me what you (actually) got.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2017,18:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 26 2017,16:56)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2017,16:45)
Hamilton provided a definition, with math and expository writing explaining how it worked, and he also provided natural examples.

Then you should be easily be able to explain the underlying basic principles that cause some to be gay while others are not.

This is supposed to be one of the biggest remaining mysteries in all of science.  Show me what you (actually) got.

Quit moving the goal posts just because you've shown yourself to be uniformed with respect to your blatherings.

What I said was that inclusive fitness explains how altruistic behaviors and behaviors or traits that do not directly result in more offspring for the individual involved (e.g. homosexuality) can be positively selected during the course of evolution. That's all I claimed, and that is well understood.  What amount of homosexuality is explained by a genetic component is unknown, as are the exact causes of homosexuality.

Recall, this is in response to YOUR question, "And does that name by chance include a gay population...?".  The answer remains, yes it does.

Inclusive fitness explains kin selection, which includes such things as individuals sacrificing themselves (or putting themselves at risk) to warn siblings and cousins: J.B.S. Haldane, "I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins."  However, it also describes the benefits to a community of a more general reciprocal altruism involving unrelated individuals (hence "inclusive"), and how many selfish cheaters can be tolerated before such a system becomes unstable.  If your community benefits from having elders around (more people to watch over the young, more long-term experience, more accumulated wisdom, and more experience with rare hazards), all of which increases the chances of survival for your young, it is worth your while evolutionarily to look after unrelated elders, quite apart from the personal benefits of establishing a culture of looking after elderly people in preparation for when you in turn become elderly.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2017,21:12   

Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2017,18:01)
What I said was that inclusive fitness explains how altruistic behaviors and behaviors or traits that do not directly result in more offspring for the individual involved (e.g. homosexuality) can be positively selected during the course of evolution. That's all I claimed, and that is well understood.  [b]What amount of homosexuality is explained by a genetic component is unknown, as are the exact causes of homosexuality.[b]

Recall, this is in response to YOUR question, "And does that name by chance include a gay population...?".  The answer remains, yes it does.

Inclusive fitness explains kin selection, which includes such things as individuals sacrificing themselves (or putting themselves at risk) to warn siblings and cousins: J.B.S. Haldane, "I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins."  However, it also describes the benefits to a community of a more general reciprocal altruism involving unrelated individuals (hence "inclusive"), and how many selfish cheaters can be tolerated before such a system becomes unstable.  If your community benefits from having elders around (more people to watch over the young, more long-term experience, more accumulated wisdom, and more experience with rare hazards), all of which increases the chances of survival for your young, it is worth your while evolutionarily to look after unrelated elders, quite apart from the personal benefits of establishing a culture of looking after elderly people in preparation for when you in turn become elderly.

Instead of your trying to pretend that you knew how how all that works you should have just been honest, which in this case only needed the one sentence. All the rest around it was well written, but amounts to trying to look smart after basically admitting you have no working model for determining the likely cause of things like "altruism".

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2017,21:14   

Edit (for bolding code) below:

 
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2017,18:01)
What I said was that inclusive fitness explains how altruistic behaviors and behaviors or traits that do not directly result in more offspring for the individual involved (e.g. homosexuality) can be positively selected during the course of evolution. That's all I claimed, and that is well understood.  What amount of homosexuality is explained by a genetic component is unknown, as are the exact causes of homosexuality.

Recall, this is in response to YOUR question, "And does that name by chance include a gay population...?".  The answer remains, yes it does.

Inclusive fitness explains kin selection, which includes such things as individuals sacrificing themselves (or putting themselves at risk) to warn siblings and cousins: J.B.S. Haldane, "I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins."  However, it also describes the benefits to a community of a more general reciprocal altruism involving unrelated individuals (hence "inclusive"), and how many selfish cheaters can be tolerated before such a system becomes unstable.  If your community benefits from having elders around (more people to watch over the young, more long-term experience, more accumulated wisdom, and more experience with rare hazards), all of which increases the chances of survival for your young, it is worth your while evolutionarily to look after unrelated elders, quite apart from the personal benefits of establishing a culture of looking after elderly people in preparation for when you in turn become elderly.

Instead of your trying to pretend that you knew how how all that works you should have just been honest, which in this case only needed the one sentence. All the rest around it was well written, but amounts to trying to look smart after basically admitting you have no working model for determining the likely cause of things like "altruism".

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2017,23:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 27 2017,21:14)
Edit (for bolding code) below:

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 26 2017,18:01)
What I said was that inclusive fitness explains how altruistic behaviors and behaviors or traits that do not directly result in more offspring for the individual involved (e.g. homosexuality) can be positively selected during the course of evolution. That's all I claimed, and that is well understood.  What amount of homosexuality is explained by a genetic component is unknown, as are the exact causes of homosexuality.

Recall, this is in response to YOUR question, "And does that name by chance include a gay population...?".  The answer remains, yes it does.

Inclusive fitness explains kin selection, which includes such things as individuals sacrificing themselves (or putting themselves at risk) to warn siblings and cousins: J.B.S. Haldane, "I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins."  However, it also describes the benefits to a community of a more general reciprocal altruism involving unrelated individuals (hence "inclusive"), and how many selfish cheaters can be tolerated before such a system becomes unstable.  If your community benefits from having elders around (more people to watch over the young, more long-term experience, more accumulated wisdom, and more experience with rare hazards), all of which increases the chances of survival for your young, it is worth your while evolutionarily to look after unrelated elders, quite apart from the personal benefits of establishing a culture of looking after elderly people in preparation for when you in turn become elderly.

Instead of your trying to pretend that you knew how how all that works you should have just been honest, which in this case only needed the one sentence. All the rest around it was well written, but amounts to trying to look smart after basically admitting you have no working model for determining the likely cause of things like "altruism".

You really have comprehension problems, don't you?

You claimed that inclusive fitness was a new buzz word that merely adds complications.  

You are wrong on both assertions - the term was coined 50 years ago, and is well understood and offers considerable clarification.

You then asked (rather poorly) "And does that name by chance include a gay population, without which all of humanity is somehow less fit?"
You brought up homosexuality.  I agreed that homosexuality is the sort of thing intended to be covered by inclusive fitness (something that tends not to lead to an individual having as many children as a heterosexual, but where the presence of homosexuals could well be a overall benefit to the reproductive success of a group, raising the status of a group via artistic contributions, for instance, or helping to provide childcare, or such like).  That is not a claim to understand the origin of homosexuality.  

Inclusive fitness explains very nicely (mathematically and as demonstrated via field and lab studies) that altruistic behaviors and behaviors that do not lead to an individual's personal reproductive success can nonetheless be selected for during evolution.  It is best worked out with regard to (1) animals that offer warnings that increase their own risk but help save their relatives, and (2) eusocial insects like ants and bees with unusual (for us) patterns of relatedness (with clones, haploid individuals, and so forth).    

You now insist that I need to have or claimed falsely to have an explanation for the causes of homosexuality.  The origin of homosexuality is not what you or I have been discussing, and it's not what I claimed.  Again, inclusive fitness, about which you remain ignorant, explains very well how apparently nonadaptive behavior can nonetheless be selected for during the course of evolution.  It has been a tremendously successful area of biology.

I did not say that we do not understand how altruistic behavior can expand through a population.  We do know this.  If an altruistic behavior has a genetic component (is selectable), it can be selected if its average or expected cost to an individual is exceeded by the benefits in reproductive success reaped by the individual's close relatives.  Again, as Haldane said, "I would gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins."

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2017,19:21   

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/12/dinosaur-ancestors-had-crankles-crocodile-ankles-scientists/
Quote
"Our discovery shows the value of maintaining and re-assessing historical collections: many new discoveries, like this one, can be made by looking through museum collections with fresh eyes."


--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2017,08:36   

Quote (ametsbap @ May 06 2017,10:15)
Заказывайте или предлагайте свои услуги по фиксированной цене $5. Мы максимально сократили время на заказ услуг. Заказчики выбирают подходящую им услугу и оплачивает ее. Исполнители предлагают различные услуги, как точечные доработки, так и объемные работы. Все услуги указаны по фиксированной цене 5 баксов. Цены на сайте указаны в рублях по внутреннему курсу. Присоединяйтесь к нам, предлагайте свои услуги и зарабатывайте деньги уже сегодня!


Для покупателя

Выберите желаемую услугу всего за 5 баксов!Ориентируйтесь на отзывы и рейтинг исполнителя.
Оплатите услугу. Работа будет считаться выполненнойтолько после вашего подтверждения. 100 % безопасно!
После получения работы оцените исполнтеля и оставьте отзыв! Покупайте снова!


Для продавца

Опубликуйте услугу по фиксированной цене в $5 и добавляйте возможные дополнения к заказу!
Продавайте свои услуги на проекте 5bucks. Получайте отзывы и повышайте свой рейтинг, увеличивайте количество продаж!
5Bucks это фриланс-биржа нового поколения. Зарабатывайте деньги не выходя из дома! Превратите свое хобби в работу!

Закажите статейный прогон для Вашего сайта для продвижения в поисковых системах ЗАКАЗАТЬ

So, basically what you're saying is Gary is a gigantic HOMO?

Interesting.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2017,20:37   

That's Greek to me!

(Although I'm not at all sure that it's using the Greek alphabet. )

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2017,22:41   

In case you did not know, with thanks to a UMass StemEd physicist (all in local science education know and trust for good advice in such matters) I revised page 9 of the "Cognitive Origin of the Scientific Method" presentation, I had rushed together for the online 2016 Alternatives to the Scientific Method philosophy conference. With my having this online for others to use it was worth pestering Mort for his opinion of the Theory, Hypothesis, Model and Law related content. It passes along a couple of physics related hypotheses/questions he used to explain to me what was missing:

sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/ScientificMethod.pdf

The rushed scientific method presentation needed work, but the (still fine to go the way it is) theory of you know what is still online, for anyone who needs to know what a truly scientific one looks like. As expected: this turned out to also be true:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/all-neurons-found-to-be-genetically-unique

And why am I not surprised?


www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6034;st=390#entry257255

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2017,23:17   

Quick correction!

The name of the philosophy conference was in part named Alternatives to "Methodological Naturalism", which is indeed a philosophical natural/supernatural construct. The "Scientific Method" is not to be confused with Methodological Naturalism, but sometimes is. My presentation was to show that philosophy is powerless to change how the scientific method works, has no influence at all over how the method works.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Cubist



Posts: 493
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2017,04:32   

Quote (Henry J @ May 11 2017,20:37)
That's Greek to me!

(Although I'm not at all sure that it's using the Greek alphabet. )

It's the Cyrillic alphabet. If you cut-and-paste the gibberish into Google Translate and tell it to "detect language", GT will detect it as Russian. Also, the ".ru" in the link "show18.ru" means it's in Russia's top-level domain, just as ".uk" indicates the United Kingdom's t-ld, and ".us" indicates the United States' t-ld, and so on.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2017,12:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 11 2017,22:41)
In case you did not know, with thanks to a UMass StemEd physicist (all in local science education know and trust for good advice in such matters) I revised page 9 of the "Cognitive Origin of the Scientific Method" presentation, I had rushed together for the online 2016 Alternatives to the Scientific Method philosophy conference. With my having this online for others to use it was worth pestering Mort for his opinion of the Theory, Hypothesis, Model and Law related content. It passes along a couple of physics related hypotheses/questions he used to explain to me what was missing:

sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/ScientificMethod.pdf

The rushed scientific method presentation needed work, but the (still fine to go the way it is) theory of you know what is still online, for anyone who needs to know what a truly scientific one looks like. As expected: this turned out to also be true:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/all-neurons-found-to-be-genetically-unique

And why am I not surprised?


www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6034;st=390#entry257255



             
Quote
And why am I not surprised?

Well, you should be - the closest thing you have to a prediction is that everything is self-similar.



From your latest version (which is still problematic):
               
Quote
A "hypothesis" is an idea you can test.

No, that’s close but it’s simplistic and is not technically accurate.  (& 'An', not 'A'.)  An hypothesis can be a claim or assertion stated for the purpose of testing (“The mean of sample X is larger than the mean of Sample Y” vs “Not larger than”) or it can be a proposed explanation of something, again ideally or typically stated in a form that is amenable for testing.  Not all hypotheses are testable (there’s a reason scientists can talk about “testable hypotheses” without being redundant), but largely hypotheses aren’t scientifically useful until they are testable and (best) until they are worked into sets that are mutually exclusive and cover all possibilities.  Ideally, scientists test multiple, mutually exclusive, working hypotheses at the same time.


For crying out loud, why are you relying on a kid's TV show when it is greatly oversimplified for a preschool audience?  It's like arguing about relativity on the basis of "I am Albert Einstein", or astronomy on the basis of what you learned from watching Star Wars.

               
Quote
Experiments are designed to test ideas in the form of theories, conjectures and questions.

Yes.

               
Quote
Many hypotheses are intended to gather information without preconceptions.
What kind of fossils are in this layer?
What is the mass or magnetic moment of this nuclide?
Can we find more pulsars?


No, those examples are not hypotheses.  Those are research questions, not hypotheses.  Also, they are not in any way testable in the stated form.

               
Quote
The result should as best as possible repeatedly be either true or false, hopefully no uncertainty.

Yes, absolutely, see “in a form amenable to testing”.  In what way is “What is the mass of a nuclide?” testable?  This is why you have no hypotheses worthy of the name.

               
Quote
Uncertain results may require the hypothesis be retested with a better experiment, or reworded.

Yes.  You haven’t stated any acceptable hypotheses, so you are not even at the stage of needing to reword them.

               
Quote
Hypotheses may be philosophical or religious, but being scientific requires conducting a scientific test.

Mangled but essentially true.  Hypotheses may stem from philosophical or religious concerns, but to be a scientific hypothesis, it has to be stated in a form that can be addressed by science.

               
Quote
A "model" demonstrates how something works/happened.
A (computer, engineering or mental) model is a simplified description of the systematics of a process.
Models provide general insights, and are not normally expected to be the whole story.
 
I have no quarrel with any of that.  I would add that some models can constitute a test of whether we adequately understand something.

               
Quote
Charles Darwin's "evolution by natural selection" theory contained a generalized “mental model”

Yes

               
Quote
......but the "natural selection" variable is a generalization that does not explain how living things work.

No.  Natural selection is a well defined, relatively easily measured, and well documented process.  (It may be a variable in some computer models, but that’s another matter.)  It is only intended to explain one process of evolutionary change and speciation.

               
Quote
Questions regarding intelligent behavior requires [sic] cognitive models.
 
First, they require valid and usable definitions so that the questions are not meaningless garbage, let alone the answers.  You still don’t have that.  (Well, you have the garbage, but not the valid and usable definitions.)

               
Quote
Instead of “selection” based terminology the basics become confidence, memory and guess.

You still don’t have usable operational definitions, valid regular definitions, or any indications that those things do what you claim in your model.  You have yet to demonstrate that your model is applicable to reality.  Your claims against natural selection are false.  Your claims do not follow from your model.  Your text contains logical inconsistencies, contradictions, and errors of fact.

               
Quote
What is called “natural selection” may happen on its own in a model, not need to be programmed in.
True.

               
Quote
Even where there is this overlap there should be no inherent conflict between models, or their theory.

Not sure what you mean.

               
Quote
A "theory" explains how something works/happened.
The explanation can use words, equations, illustrations and other useful information.

Yes.  Your not-a-theory doesn’t do that.  Also, to become a theory, an explanation has to meet a certain level of acceptance and confirmation (or to have done so in the past).  Somebody saying “I have a theory” is not sufficient.

               
Quote
The scientific theory in books by Charles Darwin explained how his model for speciation works,
which is now computer model tested using various Genetic/Evolutionary Algorithms.

Yes.  

               
Quote
The scientific theory in books by Albert Einstein explained how his cosmic model works,
which is now computer model tested by various models of the universe(s?).

Yes.

               
Quote
For a scientific theory to be useful it has to explain a model/mechanism to experiment with.

Yes.  You haven’t done that.  Without operational definitions, no one, including you, knows what you are talking about, so nothing in your stuff can be experimented with.

               
Quote
Where that is left up to reader's imagination no theory even exists, which is scientific fraud.

Yes, you are in that category.

               
Quote
A "law" is a math equation or relationship that approximates a behavior.
Newton's laws of motion are regularly used to calculate planetary orbits.
Einstein's laws of relativity are required for calculations where the speed of light is a factor

Yes, laws describe patterns / behaviors.  (No one says this, in large part because scientists tend not to announce "laws" any more and in part because laws are supposed to be grand while most hypotheses tend to be highly reductive, but in effect scientific laws are what you get when hypotheses that are non-explanatory pass all their tests.)

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 447
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2017,08:13   

What N.Wells said and saved me the trouble.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2017,20:24   

Deletion and blockage needed on Lavetafloap, if anyone is bothered about that sort of stuff.

  
Lethean



Posts: 138
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2017,21:09   

Yeah, it's probably unconnected spam, but on the other hand with the "WannaCrypt" worm raging across the planet and toasting unpatched and out of lifecycle operating systems I wouldn't go poking at any of those links unless you are certain you're secure against it.

Although security updates for this were in place something like two months ago for currently supported software, Microsoft just released a complete set hotfixes even for XP, Win8, and Server 2003. I'll post a link to the BW.

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2017,21:23   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 13 2017,20:24)
Deletion and blockage needed on Lavetafloap, if anyone is bothered about that sort of stuff.

I have not clicked on any of their links, or have a clue what that's ultimately for. It could just be more of the usual advertising spam that other forums delete, though I have never seen anything like this before.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2017,05:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2017,21:23)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 13 2017,20:24)
Deletion and blockage needed on Lavetafloap, if anyone is bothered about that sort of stuff.

I have not clicked on any of their links, or have a clue what that's ultimately for. It could just be more of the usual advertising spam that other forums delete, though I have never seen anything like this before.

I'm not foolish enough to have clicked on any of that either and strongly advise against it: Google Translate shows it to be Russian porn links.

Given the way Google et al. follow our interests, I am now dreading an avalanche of dubious Russian advertisements.

In the meantime, Gary, why not try to defend your nonsense or correct it?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2017,07:41   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 12 2017,12:25)
From your latest version (which is still problematic):
                 
Quote
A "hypothesis" is an idea you can test.

No, that’s close but it’s simplistic and is not technically accurate.  (& 'An', not 'A'.) ......

The core five word "an idea you can test" definition for a hypothesis works fine, the way it is. Those I see asking for more are confusing a proposed explanation (a theory) with a hypothesis. It's easy enough for all to this way keep the two well separated.

According to the definition's logic: a proposed explanation for how something works should NOT ever be called a "hypothesis", in that case it's actually a "theory".

It is possible to propose a "fabric of the universe" type hypothesis that leads to numerous "String Theories" that are to some degree mathematically testable. Not working as well as expected for modeling a universe helped cause the theories (then the hypothesis they started from) to fail, thus "String Theory" was being tested, just not to the fullest degree possible using technology that does not yet exist.

In regards to "intelligent cause" science requires a model based cognitive science operational definition, as in the theory I wrote. The problem is with those who expect an unexplainable "supernatural" type intervention, instead of scientific theory for how the intelligent cause of all living things actually works.

The PBS - Dinosaur Train definition has proven itself to be extremely useful. I have found that no additional detail is necessary. And with this being a culturally established science-changer that you are powerless to change you will just have to get used to it, anyway. Might as well learn to enjoy the time saver. You will never convince me that it is necessary to complicate things until it takes a science journal run organization to decide whether something is a theory, or not in which case it gets deceptively demoted by considering it something lesser such as "only a hypothesis". Best to beforehand know which (by most modern simple definition) the writing actually is, before sending to a publisher as one or the other. They would rather not waste time having to figure that out, for you.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 447
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2017,08:43   

Gaulin,

I see your attempts at the English language has worsened. Please read the dreck you write out loud before posting.

For once I agree with you, you do have a theory, only not in the scientific sense. Yours is the common usage of a guess. It is not an hypothesis nor a scientific theory and it only just approaches an idea.

As has been pointed out many many times you do not define your idea. You have provided no testable evidence for your idea. There is no falsifiable test for your idea. You have a religious obsession that needs professional help.

Quote
And with this being a culturally established science-changer that you are powerless to change you will just have to get used to it, anyway.


What exactly are you referring to here? Is it Dinosaur Train or your idea? Dino Train has more chance of becoming a "culturally science-changer" than your crap.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2017,08:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2017,07:41)
         
Quote (N.Wells @ May 12 2017,12:25)
From your latest version (which is still problematic):
                             
Quote
A "hypothesis" is an idea you can test.

No, that’s close but it’s simplistic and is not technically accurate.  (& 'An', not 'A'.) ......

The core five word "an idea you can test" definition for a hypothesis works fine, the way it is. Those I see asking for more are confusing a proposed explanation (a theory) with a hypothesis. It's easy enough for all to this way keep the two well separated.

According to the definition's logic: a proposed explanation for how something works should NOT ever be called a "hypothesis", in that case it's actually a "theory".

It is possible to propose a "fabric of the universe" type hypothesis that leads to numerous "String Theories" that are to some degree mathematically testable. Not working as well as expected for modeling a universe helped cause the theories (then the hypothesis they started from) to fail, thus "String Theory" was being tested, just not to the fullest degree possible using technology that does not yet exist.

In regards to "intelligent cause" science requires a model based cognitive science operational definition, as in the theory I wrote. The problem is with those who expect an unexplainable "supernatural" type intervention, instead of scientific theory for how the intelligent cause of all living things actually works.

The PBS - Dinosaur Train definition has proven itself to be extremely useful. I have found that no additional detail is necessary. And with this being a culturally established science-changer that you are powerless to change you will just have to get used to it, anyway. Might as well learn to enjoy the time saver. You will never convince me that it is necessary to complicate things until it takes a science journal run organization to decide whether something is a theory, or not in which case it gets deceptively demoted by considering it something lesser such as "only a hypothesis". Best to beforehand know which (by most modern simple definition) the writing actually is, before sending to a publisher as one or the other. They would rather not waste time having to figure that out, for you.

         
Quote
The core five word "an idea you can test" definition for a hypothesis works fine, the way it is. Those I see asking for more are confusing a proposed explanation (a theory) with a hypothesis. It's easy enough for all to this way keep the two well separated.  According to the definition's logic: a proposed explanation for how something works should NOT ever be called a "hypothesis", in that case it's actually a "theory".

No, you are very wrong about that.  A theory is an explanation that has passed some level of confirmation.  Until then we are dealing with hypotheses.  
Theory = at least some acceptance and/or confirmation and/or justification (now or previously)
Hypothesis = proposals for the purpose of investigation.

Hypotheses are ideally testable and ideally mutually exclusive.  They can be stated in null and alternate pairs or larger sets of mutually exclusive possibilities, often phrased as "if... then" predictions ("if A is true, then B should be true", so you go and test for B).

In science outside of statistics, we usually propose hypotheses as potential explanations: you may suspect that the hypothesis is correct, or false - that doesn't matter.  What's more important is that your hypotheses cover as many options as possible, in order to heighten the probability that one of them is the correct answer, and then you work to disprove them or confirm them.  

You like to argue on the basis of definitions available on the internet, so let's check out some definitions to see whether or not hypotheses can be proposed explanations:
Google:          
Quote
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.



Dictionary.com          
Quote

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.



Vocabulary.com          
Quote

Hypothesis
In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation. Outside science, a theory or guess can also be called a hypothesis.  A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory. In science, a hypothesis needs to go through a lot of testing before it gets labeled a theory. In the non-scientific world, the word is used a lot more loosely. A detective might have a hypothesis about a crime, and a mother might have a hypothesis about who spilled juice on the rug. Anyone who uses the word hypothesis is making a guess.
1  n   a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena: “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”

n   a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations.


Cambridge
         
Quote
an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven


Wikipedia
         
Quote
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.


On the other hand, you have a TV show for preschoolers.  There's nothing wrong with using a kiddie formulation, as long as that formulation is correct, but when it is wrong or oversimplified (as here), then you are making a total idiot of yourself.  More fool you.


         
Quote
In regards to "intelligent cause" science requires a model based cognitive science operational definition, as in the theory I wrote.

First, "intelligent" requires a valid and clearly stated regular definition and a usable operational definition.  You have neither.  Second, a model-based definition (which you do not have) would work and would be fine, but it is NOT required.  Models are optional.  Third, what you wrote is not a theory, as it has neither confirmation, nor broad acceptance, nor internal consistency.  Fourth, nothing in your writing rises to the level of constituting a usable operational definition of "intelligent cause".

NCSE          
Quote
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

String theory is at the lower end of "theory": it is mathematically consistent and respectably developed enough to be worth considerable additional work (hence "theory"), in stark contrast to your mess of verbiage, but it remains mostly untestable (hence "at the lower end").

         
Quote
I have found that no additional detail is necessary.

Yet you are wrong.

         
Quote
And with this being a culturally established science-changer that you are powerless to change you will just have to get used to it, anyway.
As always, thanks for the giggles.  Here's a prediction: as long as you stick to your guns on this, you will not get one iota of either cultural establishment or changing science.


         
Quote
Might as well learn to enjoy the time saver. You will never convince me that it is necessary to complicate things until it takes a science journal run organization to decide whether something is a theory, or not in which case it gets deceptively demoted by considering it something lesser such as "only a hypothesis". Best to beforehand know which (by most modern simple definition) the writing actually is, before sending to a publisher as one or the other. They would rather not waste time having to figure that out, for you.

Other than never convincing you, I have no idea what your point is there.

 
Quote
The core five word "an idea you can test" definition for a hypothesis works fine, the way it is.

Again, how can anyone test “What is the mass of a nuclide?” (your example of an hypothesis)  

You really need to do better if you want anyone to take you seriously.  Or, better, abandon your attempts as hopeless and look after yourself and your family instead.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5216
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2017,15:33   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 12 2017,12:25)
                 
Quote
A "hypothesis" is an idea you can test.

No, that’s close but it’s simplistic and is not technically accurate.  (& 'An', not 'A'.)  

And FYI:

Buddy has a hypothesis:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0CGhy6cNJE

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
  18140 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (605) < ... 587 588 589 590 591 [592] 593 594 595 596 597 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]