RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (592) < ... 584 585 586 587 588 [589] 590 591 592 >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 363
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2017,12:32   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 14 2017,10:09)
Appears that Gaulin really has run into the wall.

I'm not so sure that didn't happen head first a long time ago.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2017,18:34   

Goooo!  Yes, Goooo!  STAND STILL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I just couldn't resist that . . . . )

Clap for the hootster . . . .

:)  :)  :)

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 394
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2017,17:02   

Quote
I'm not so sure that didn't happen head first a long time ago.


If he went head first he'd go straight through and still be running.

Wrecking ball Gaulin.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5085
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2017,18:38   

I had to mention a useful Panda's Thumb article at Reddit, then link to an excellent example or religious extremism.

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/5t8895/scientist_claiming_evolutions_mutation_rates_dont/ddmy7td/

And for a geology refresher:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/5ttv3g/creationist_scientist_dr_nathaniels_jeansons/ddppd0y/

--------------
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: 1736
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2017,22:30   

Some quotes of interest from the Sandwalk thread
Larry:  
Quote
I'm convinced that [Darwin] worked [his idea] up to the level of an important biological hypothesis. He also provided evidence to support the concept when he published in 1859.

...............


I call this the Ernst Mayr way of doing science. As you know, Mayr said so many different things at different times that he can lay claim to being the first to discovery everything in evolutionary biology. The fact that much of what he said was contradictory doesn't seem to bother him. I think we should give credit to those who come with an idea independently and recognize its importance. We should recognize the people who promote, as well as discover, an idea and we should give credit to those who explain it well and provide evidence to support their idea.  Darwin did all this and he went one step farther. He considered and evaluated all the objections to his theory and admitted its shortcomings. That's the mark of an excellent scientist.


Gary, note that saying contradictory things causes other people to doubt your conclusions, and that scientists expect other scientists to explain their ideas well, provide actual evidence in support of their ideas, and evaluate the objections and shortcomings of their ideas.

Mikkel Rassmussen about Otangelo  
Quote
This is the same typical shit as always. Rather than admit to and correct his deceptive mistake on his website, Otangelo simply proceeds to change the subject and copy-paste another wall of text full of fundamental errors, fallacious appeals to authority, misrepresentations and lies.


Might that sound familiar, Gary?

Gary  
Quote
Considering how I met my obligation to both science and ID .....

OK, now that's just knee-slappingly, roll-on-the-floor hilarious.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 394
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2017,04:20   

Quote
And for a geology refresher:


A YouTube video, quelle surprise! At least it's not a crappy music one.

Gaulin pseudoscience all the way.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5085
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2017,06:45   

From another forum, and is applicable to this one:

Quote
The same goes for you. Regardless of who you think you are the same basics of the scientific method applies to all sides of the argument. Another round of "natural selection" did-it answers will not work either.
You do not have a long trusted cognitive science based model with testable theory pertaining to the origin of biological "intelligence" and a scientific operational definition for "intelligent cause", therefore you are in the same boat as the Discovery Institute, anyway.
Throwing insults at everyone expecting a computer model and theory from you makes you exactly like them, belong together.

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/5t8895/scientist_claiming_evolutions_mutation_rates_dont/dduew4m/

People who believe that it's as easy as sending what you have for theory to a "science journal" are sending a dangerous message that made it possible for the DI, AIG and other entities to get where they now are, by simply starting their own journals.

--------------
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.

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1194
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2017,10:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 17 2017,06:45)
You do not have a long trusted cognitive science based model with testable theory pertaining to the origin of biological "intelligence" and a scientific operational definition for "intelligent cause"...

Look in a mirror and read this aloud.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1736
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2017,10:32   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 17 2017,10:27)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 17 2017,06:45)
You do not have a long trusted cognitive science based model with testable theory pertaining to the origin of biological "intelligence" and a scientific operational definition for "intelligent cause"...

Look in a mirror and read this aloud.

You beat me to it.
Seconded.

  
k.e..



Posts: 3805
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2017,10:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 17 2017,18:32)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 17 2017,10:27)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 17 2017,06:45)
You do not have a long trusted cognitive science based model with testable theory pertaining to the origin of biological "intelligence" and a scientific operational definition for "intelligent cause"...

Look in a mirror and read this aloud.

You beat me to it.
Seconded.

All the mirrors in Gary's house have been smashed by his alter ego. The one that knows he's complete bullshiter.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4599
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2017,12:01   

mirror mirror on the wall ?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1736
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,06:53   

Quote
People who believe that it's as easy as sending what you have for theory to a "science journal" are sending a dangerous message that made it possible for the DI, AIG and other entities to get where they now are, by simply starting their own journals.


You are correct we have a problem of "science journals" that aren't legitimate: creationist scams are only a small part of this.  There are lots of vanity presses trying to scam people who want to be published writers, up to and including fake scientific journals and conferences that will publish anything for a fee.  The fake journals and conferences are aimed at scamming academics (especially young, third-world, and/or non-English-speaking academics) who are feeling the pressure of "publish or perish".  Check out OMNICS International and the Infonomics Society.  Libraries, scientific associations, and tenure committees spend a lot of time sorting these out by looking at ISI & Scopus lists, e.g. the Web of Science's Journal Citation Report and Scopus' SNIP and SCImago journal rankings, impact factors, editorial boards, rejection rates, fee structures, peer-review policies, various accreditation sources (Directory of Open Access Journals), and so on.  

Beyond that, scientists don't publish "what they have for theory" so much as the evidence that they have for and/or against a theory.  In contrast, you have a mess of unsupported and unsupportable assertions without any tests or supporting evidence that would give anyone a reason to be interested in it.  Also, these days relatively few scientific publications propose new theories: most involve new observations, tests of hypotheses, and ground-proofed models.  (You don't have any of that.)

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 394
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,09:05   

Quote
People who believe that it's as easy as sending what you have for theory to a "science journal" are sending a dangerous message that made it possible for the DI, AIG and other entities to get where they now are, by simply starting their own journals.


And these vanity journals will not print your pile-o'-crap either.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1736
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,09:48   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 18 2017,09:05)
Quote
People who believe that it's as easy as sending what you have for theory to a "science journal" are sending a dangerous message that made it possible for the DI, AIG and other entities to get where they now are, by simply starting their own journals.


And these vanity journals will not print your pile-o'-crap either.

Oh, they'd publish him all right, except that fortunately for humanity he probably can't afford it.  

The most famous instance of them publishing anything is Mazieres and Kohler (2005)

http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm....ove.pdf

http://www.slate.com/blogs....ng.html

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5085
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,14:52   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 18 2017,09:48)
Oh, they'd publish him all right, except that fortunately for humanity he probably can't afford it.  

The most famous instance of them publishing anything is Mazieres and Kohler (2005)

http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm........ove.pdf

http://www.slate.com/blogs......ng.html

In regards to socially important basic science the general public needs to understand: leaving such issues up to the "publish or perish" world to settle has helped create the current US educational mess.

University level academia understandably does not normally even want to be responsible for settling public school level issues that responsible leaders could have on their own solved, anyway.

I'm stuck in the middle of a very bad situation that is getting worse by the day. The US Department Of Education is now run by a friend of Donald Trump who never attended a public school but wants taxpayer funded Christian religious schools, for all. Using Bibles to teach scientific answers is already likely a part of an acceptable public school curriculum.

All in all the AIG and the DI won. Their journals now take care of all the basic science issues that the publish or perish world did not want to get involved in. Much worse tragedy ahead.

--------------
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: 1736
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,15:17   

Quote
All in all the AIG and the DI won. Their journals now take care of all the basic science issues that the publish or perish world did not want to get involved in.


BS. Name one "basic science issue" that academia has not got involved in but which AIG & DI "journals" now take care of.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5085
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,17:05   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 18 2017,15:17)
 
Quote
All in all the AIG and the DI won. Their journals now take care of all the basic science issues that the publish or perish world did not want to get involved in.


BS. Name one "basic science issue" that academia has not got involved in but which AIG & DI "journals" now take care of.

I have a number of things that so far not even the US National Academy of Sciences who are also responsible for reporting to US Congress and president in regards to national science policy have shown any interest in writing back on. It has only been one work week since emailing my reasons for not having academic funding to pay for an article and seek their opinion on how to turn what I have into something publishable, but from past experience I expect no reply.

How "intelligent cause" and similar phrases are operationally defined are now the exclusive domain of religious entities who filled the void with their own institutes, research labs and journals who now meet consumer demand for educational materials pertaining to these "intelligence" related concepts. Such things should instead be operationally defined by basic "cognitive science" that are most easily explained by David Heiserman's machine intelligence work from the 1970's.

Your swellheaded need to make science journals a governing body that somehow magically graduates hypotheses to theories makes it impossible for the general public to on their own figure out that the DI has no scientific model therefore no "scientific theory" as they claim. You are helping to conceal what is otherwise a very noticeable fraud. Maintaining your dysfunctional operational definition for "theory" is vital to your supposed enemy too.

--------------
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: 1736
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,18:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2017,17:05)
         
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 18 2017,15:17)
           
Quote
All in all the AIG and the DI won. Their journals now take care of all the basic science issues that the publish or perish world did not want to get involved in.


BS. Name one "basic science issue" that academia has not got involved in but which AIG & DI "journals" now take care of.

I have a number of things that so far not even the US National Academy of Sciences who are also responsible for reporting to US Congress and president in regards to national science policy have shown any interest in writing back on. It has only been one work week since emailing my reasons for not having academic funding to pay for an article and seek their opinion on how to turn what I have into something publishable, but from past experience I expect no reply.

How "intelligent cause" and similar phrases are operationally defined are now the exclusive domain of religious entities who filled the void with their own institutes, research labs and journals who now meet consumer demand for educational materials pertaining to these "intelligence" related concepts. Such things should instead be operationally defined by basic "cognitive science" that are most easily explained by David Heiserman's machine intelligence work from the 1970's.

Your swellheaded need to make science journals a governing body that somehow magically graduates hypotheses to theories makes it impossible for the general public to on their own figure out that the DI has no scientific model therefore no "scientific theory" as they claim. You are helping to conceal what is otherwise a very noticeable fraud. Maintaining your dysfunctional operational definition for "theory" is vital to your supposed enemy too.


ROFL - you are really on a roll today.

First of all, even if you were to have something, AIG and the DI and their "journals" are clearly not interested in it, so that doesn't make your argument that the AIG and DI "journals" are taking care of anything.

Secondly, you clearly don't have anything worthwhile.  Your terms are not validly defined and your writings about them contain internal contradictions.  You have no operational definitions, so you literally, not just figuratively, have no idea what you are talking about.

You do not have a usable and valid definition of "intelligent cause" that supports how you are using the term, and you absolutely do not have an operational definition for either "intelligence cause" or "intelligence".  The fact that you even make such an assertion indicates that you STILL don't know what an operational definition is.  (Which has more intelligence - a mushroom or an oak tree, and by how much?)

(In responding, try not to repeat your earlier confusions between scientific theories and theories of operation and between theories of operation and operational definitions.)

If you want an operational definition of intelligence based on machine intelligence, fine, produce one.  (Your current nonsense does not rise to that level.)  That might be worth the effort and could potentially be publishable, if you could do something decent with the idea, but so far you haven't done anything remotely like it.

You have yet to produce one single thing that warrants anyone taking any interest in anything you say.  Even if your ideas sounded interesting (which they don't), you haven't provided any successful tests, nor even any valid and legitimate predictions that could provide the basis for testing were anyone interested in doing so, nor any ground-truthing that might give even a hint that your hallucinations and assertions had even the slightest connection to reality.  You are not using the terminology correctly, which would be okay if you had provided redefinitions and justified them, but you haven't done that.  You have indeed demonstrated absolutely convincingly that you have minimal to no understanding of the basics across a broad range of fields that you pontificate about, but if you think about that a moment, you might realize that that is not a positive accomplishment.  You have yet to give anyone even the slightest reason to think that you might have something worthwhile.  

Lastly, I have not proposed an operational definition for "theory" (you still haven't learned what an operational definition is, despite us telling you).  I am not making science journals a governing body.  There is nothing magic about the development of theories.   In science, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation that has either become widely accepted by virtue of passing a variety of tests or is considered to be sufficiently likely to be correct, or at least helpful, to be worthy of serious consideration.  (The term is also used for ease of communication in talking about old theories that have since been rejected or surpassed, a bit like using titles of office or rank for people who have since retired.)  Your assertion that you have a theory is insufficient to make it a theory, or interesting, or deserving of further consideration.  The boundary between a theory and not a theory is indeed gray,  but you are about as far to the extreme end of "not a theory" as is possible.

 
Quote

I have a number of things that so far not even the US National Academy of Sciences who are also responsible for reporting to US Congress and president in regards to national science policy have shown any interest in writing back on. It has only been one work week since emailing my reasons for not having academic funding to pay for an article and seek their opinion on how to turn what I have into something publishable, but from past experience I expect no reply.

Good for them  They have standards.  Now, cite some specifics about what you have that makes your ideas worthy of their attention.

Some journals have policies of waiving page charges for authors without research grants to cover the costs.  Not all journals charge page costs.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5085
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,19:28   

Cognitive Origin of the Scientific Method
sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/ScientificMethod.pdf

--------------
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: 5085
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,19:55   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 18 2017,18:42)
Lastly, I have not proposed an operational definition for "theory" (you still haven't learned what an operational definition is, despite us telling you).  I am not making science journals a governing body.  There is nothing magic about the development of theories.   In science, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation that has either become widely accepted by virtue of passing a variety of tests or is considered to be sufficiently likely to be correct, or at least helpful, to be worthy of serious consideration.

And exactly where must these not yet a theory theories pass a variety of tests or considered to be sufficiently likely to be correct? At your clubhouse?

--------------
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: 1736
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,20:45   

A proposed explanation becomes a theory as it attracts more scientists to work on it, as it passes more and more tests, and as the scientists who work on it attract more research funding. Measures of acceptance include papers that support it in turn accumulating long citation records, having many OTHER people refer to it as a theory, having scientists develop research projects that win funding after peer review on the basis of predictions made from the new ideas, and having it become covered in university textbooks (and at lower levels later).  When people can win funding by saying that they are going to investigate some aspect of the tectonic history of Greece, or look at earthquake locations under Japan in order to better understand subduction, then it becomes obvious that plate tectonics has become a widely accepted theory.  Plate tectonics did not become a theory just because someone said, "hey, I am convinced that continents move around", and then failed to support it any further or test it in any way.  

     
Quote
these not yet a theory theories
 Wrong again - there's no such thing as a "not-yet-a-theory theory".  They just aren't theories, like your rubbish, for example.

   
Quote
And exactly where must these not yet a theory theories pass a variety of tests
Pretty much anywhere will do just fine, although in labs and in the field are traditional.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ess.svg

You link to that Wikipedia illustration for the scientific method.  That's not a bad summary, except that it leaves a lot out (science doesn't proceed by THE (or A) scientific method so much as it proceeds by many scientific methods).  Nonetheless, you don't do any of that.  Where is your hypothesis testing?  Where are your hypotheses?  Where are their tests?  Where are your observations of nature (for example, the ones that led you conclude that insects have hippocampi, a neocortex, and only four legs)?  Some interesting questions would be nice.  Note the words "relevant data" and "thorough testing".  You might consider applying the dictum that general theories must be consistent with most or all available data.

Once again your cited conflation of stuff does not amount to a theory.

The nearest thing you have to a definition of intelligence is:
       
Quote
Behavior qualifies as intelligent by meeting four circuit requirements:
(1) Something to control (real or virtual body) with motor muscles (protein, electric, etc).
(2) Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated
confidence value are stored as separate data elements.
(3) Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail.
(4)  Ability to guess a new memory action when associated  confidence level sufficiently decreases


This remains total crap.  As has been pointed out before, this excludes lots of stuff that epitomizes intelligence (thinking fondly of a loved one, planning your future, evaluating your life, composing a symphony....).  It's also wrong: autofocus cameras, sophisticated thermostats, and Neato vacuum cleaners do all of the things you mention without being intelligent.  You insist that mushrooms are intelligent, yet they do almost none of those things.  #1 is ad-hocced to the point of being ridiculous (a virtual body has motor muscles?, an electronic write-to-screen is some sort of motor muscle apparatus?), and it still doesn't apply.  Also, the earliest appearance of intelligence may have been about controlling movement, but that's certainly not the case now.

For #2, RAM is not intelligence.  "Sensory sensors"? - Good grief.

For #3, evolution of instinctive behaviors, which you include in intelligence, works on the basis of differential reproductive success, not assessment of confidence.

For #4, intelligence is not the ability to make a guess, which is ultimately a random decision in the face of uncertainty, but the ability to learn from the results of having guessed in the past in order to make more educated guesses in the future.


 
Quote
Without this the virtual critter just keeps getting zapped by the moving shock zone. It is unable to figure out how to go around then wait for when it is safe to eat the food.  When young the ID Lab #5 critter is more brave and inquisitive. It will at times ignore the food to get a closer “look” at the invisible shock zone area, which is behavior that on its own emerged from the wave interactions. The path to the attractor/food it wants is then not a direct path. It's thus drawn towards the edge of the zone even though it's a longer route to take.

Massive baseless anthropomorphizing that is convincing to no one but you.  Don't assert, but rather document and back up your claims.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5085
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2017,23:26   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 18 2017,20:45)
Measures of acceptance include papers that support it in turn accumulating long citation records, having many OTHER people refer to it as a theory, having scientists develop research projects that win funding after peer review on the basis of predictions made from the new ideas, and having it become covered in university textbooks (and at lower levels later).......................

Or in other words in your more "layman's definition" taught outside of where hypothesis and theories are commonplace: new scientific theories including all "theory of operation" for a system or device that goes outside of electronic or mechanical engineering are forbidden from ever being attempted by those who do not have a well funded science institute full of fellows to along with others publish all the required "theory" stuff around.

There is no common sense at all involved in whether something is scientific theory or not. It's a total science stopper, from those who want to do our thinking for us and in your case you do not reflect what I learned about theories and hypothesis from a STEM Ed expert who knows how top university professors use the words. For people I know who teach the best science teachers around giving the general public a functional understanding of what a theory is is a goal to work towards, not one to give up on. For that reason I must make it clear that I do see you representing top notch university academia, I only see you doing a poor job of representing them as well. By the time it's time to bash PBS Dinosaur Train for making a "hypothesis" a child simple concept that does not need your embellishments either you're probably as on your own as the DI is.

--------------
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.

   
k.e..



Posts: 3805
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2017,02:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 19 2017,07:26)
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 18 2017,20:45)
Measures of acceptance include papers that support it in turn accumulating long citation records, having many OTHER people refer to it as a theory, having scientists develop research projects that win funding after peer review on the basis of predictions made from the new ideas, and having it become covered in university textbooks (and at lower levels later).......................

Or in other words in your more "layman's definition" taught outside of where hypothesis and theories are commonplace: new scientific theories including all "theory of operation" for a system or device that goes outside of electronic or mechanical engineering are forbidden from ever being attempted by those who do not have a well funded science institute full of fellows to along with others publish all the required "theory" stuff around.

There is no common sense at all involved in whether something is scientific theory or not. It's a total science stopper, from those who want to do our thinking for us and in your case you do not reflect what I learned about theories and hypothesis from a STEM Ed expert who knows how top university professors use the words. For people I know who teach the best science teachers around giving the general public a functional understanding of what a theory is is a goal to work towards, not one to give up on. For that reason I must make it clear that I do see you representing top notch university academia, I only see you doing a poor job of representing them as well. By the time it's time to bash PBS Dinosaur Train for making a "hypothesis" a child simple concept that does not need your embellishments either you're probably as on your own as the DI is.



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1736
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2017,05:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2017,23:26)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 18 2017,20:45)
Measures of acceptance include papers that support it in turn accumulating long citation records, having many OTHER people refer to it as a theory, having scientists develop research projects that win funding after peer review on the basis of predictions made from the new ideas, and having it become covered in university textbooks (and at lower levels later).......................

Or in other words in your more "layman's definition" taught outside of where hypothesis and theories are commonplace: new scientific theories including all "theory of operation" for a system or device that goes outside of electronic or mechanical engineering are forbidden from ever being attempted by those who do not have a well funded science institute full of fellows to along with others publish all the required "theory" stuff around.

There is no common sense at all involved in whether something is scientific theory or not. It's a total science stopper, from those who want to do our thinking for us and in your case you do not reflect what I learned about theories and hypothesis from a STEM Ed expert who knows how top university professors use the words. For people I know who teach the best science teachers around giving the general public a functional understanding of what a theory is is a goal to work towards, not one to give up on. For that reason I must make it clear that I do see you representing top notch university academia, I only see you doing a poor job of representing them as well. By the time it's time to bash PBS Dinosaur Train for making a "hypothesis" a child simple concept that does not need your embellishments either you're probably as on your own as the DI is.

A scientific theory is distinct from a theory of operation, despite your ignorance of both.

Scientists can certainly do science that results in improved electronic or mechanical devices or systems that require production of a theory of operation. That sort of science falls within the realm of scientific methods without necessarily requiring hypothesis testing (although it would usually benefit from it) - that's one of many reasons why I talked about scientific methods, rather than just "the scientific method".

Your Dinosaur Train version of hypothesis is OK but not great.
First, the most useful hypotheses tend to be about explanations, rather than just ideas.  Second, it is best to work with multiple mutually exclusive hypotheses, rather than just one.   Third, it is helpful in science to be aware of other versions of "hypothesis" as used in philosophy and again as used in statistics, because both those uses can overlap with what we do in science.

Doesn't it bother you that you are a) relying on a so-so definition of hypothesis designed for kindergartners and preschoolers, and b) your crap does not even rise to the level of meeting that definition, because key parts are not testable?

(Also, what's so sacred about Dinosaur Train?  Wouldn't you expect that they would greatly simplify things for kiddies, and wouldn't you expect them occasionally to oversimplify things a bit and not always get everything perfect?  Or do you like Dinosaur Train because it is all the complexity that you can handle?)

My guess is that you seriously misunderstood your STEM Ed person, because the less likely alternative is that he or she wasn't that good at the job, because you sure aren't getting it right about theories and hypotheses.

No one is "forbidden" from doing science.  There is a long and proud history of amateurs and lay people making important contributions in science that has continued even into the modern "big science" era.  Funding, publications, and citations are measures of when an idea has developed into a theory, not requirements or barriers that have to be surmounted for an idea to be proposed and considered.  The barriers that are preventing your ideas from getting any consideration and support are largely erected by yourself, by doubling down on your mistakes and refusing to do anything that looks even vaguely like worthwhile science.  Ground-truth your model; propose some hypotheses and tests for them; test your ideas; define your terms; say stuff in comprehensible English; get your basic facts right; don't make assertions without backing them up with evidence; don't make claims beyond the relevance of your data.  How does any of that exclude you from doing good science?  The route to getting published is to develop something publishable.  You are still light-years away from that.

Look, this thread has been over and over the problems with your 'four circuit requirements' nonsense, and you are still pushing it near the top of your ideas.  If you want to make progress and be taken seriously, how about fixing it and not starting with something that makes everyone think, "what the hell is he babbling about (circuit requirements; something to control that is virtual, electric muscles, sensory sensors, memory action????)", followed by "good lord, that's a pile of crap" as they try to make sense of it.  How would fixing that require massive funding, a PhD, membership in academia, or surmounting any of the supposed barriers that you accuse me of erecting?

  
k.e..



Posts: 3805
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2017,10:02   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 19 2017,13:05)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2017,23:26)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 18 2017,20:45)
Measures of acceptance include papers that support it in turn accumulating long citation records, having many OTHER people refer to it as a theory, having scientists develop research projects that win funding after peer review on the basis of predictions made from the new ideas, and having it become covered in university textbooks (and at lower levels later).......................

Or in other words in your more "layman's definition" taught outside of where hypothesis and theories are commonplace: new scientific theories including all "theory of operation" for a system or device that goes outside of electronic or mechanical engineering are forbidden from ever being attempted by those who do not have a well funded science institute full of fellows to along with others publish all the required "theory" stuff around.

There is no common sense at all involved in whether something is scientific theory or not. It's a total science stopper, from those who want to do our thinking for us and in your case you do not reflect what I learned about theories and hypothesis from a STEM Ed expert who knows how top university professors use the words. For people I know who teach the best science teachers around giving the general public a functional understanding of what a theory is is a goal to work towards, not one to give up on. For that reason I must make it clear that I do see you representing top notch university academia, I only see you doing a poor job of representing them as well. By the time it's time to bash PBS Dinosaur Train for making a "hypothesis" a child simple concept that does not need your embellishments either you're probably as on your own as the DI is.

A scientific theory is distinct from a theory of operation, despite your ignorance of both.

Scientists can certainly do science that results in improved electronic or mechanical devices or systems that require production of a theory of operation. That sort of science falls within the realm of scientific methods without necessarily requiring hypothesis testing (although it would usually benefit from it) - that's one of many reasons why I talked about scientific methods, rather than just "the scientific method".

Your Dinosaur Train version of hypothesis is OK but not great.
First, the most useful hypotheses tend to be about explanations, rather than just ideas.  Second, it is best to work with multiple mutually exclusive hypotheses, rather than just one.   Third, it is helpful in science to be aware of other versions of "hypothesis" as used in philosophy and again as used in statistics, because both those uses can overlap with what we do in science.

Doesn't it bother you that you are a) relying on a so-so definition of hypothesis designed for kindergartners and preschoolers, and b) your crap does not even rise to the level of meeting that definition, because key parts are not testable?

My guess is that you seriously misunderstood your STEM Ed person, because the less likely alternative is that he or she wasn't that good at the job, because you sure aren't getting it right about theories and hypotheses.

No one is "forbidden" from doing science.  There is a long and proud history of amateurs and lay people making important contributions in science that has continued even into the modern "big science" era.  Funding, publications, and citations are measures of when an idea has developed into a theory, not requirements or barriers that have to be surmounted for an idea to be proposed and considered.  The barriers that are preventing your ideas from getting any consideration and support are largely erected by yourself, by doubling down on your mistakes and refusing to do anything that looks even vaguely like worthwhile science.  Ground-truth your model; propose some hypotheses and tests for them; test your ideas; define your terms; say stuff in comprehensible English; get your basic facts right; don't make assertions without backing them up with evidence; don't make claims beyond the relevance of your data.  How does any of that exclude you from doing good science?  The route to getting published is to develop something publishable.  You are still light-years away from that.

Look, this thread has been over and over the problems with your 'four circuit requirements' nonsense, and you are still pushing it near the top of your ideas.  If you want to make progress and be taken seriously, how about fixing it and not starting with something that makes everyone think, "what the hell is he babbling about (circuit requirements; something to control that is virtual, electric muscles, sensory sensors, memory action????)", followed by "good lord, that's a pile of crap" as they try to make sense of it.  How would fixing that require massive funding, a PhD, membership in academia, or surmounting any of the supposed barriers that you accuse me of erecting?

Gary has no intention whatsoever of doing anything to meet the most basic requirements for proving his wet dream when whining at the top of his voice is so much easier. Meanwhile science moves on Scientists turn ram into a cpu

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 394
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2017,12:40   

I applaud you, N.Wells.

You have immeasurably more patience with this scientific illiterate than I have.

So, Gaulin, how about starting at the beginning of your "theory" and defining "molecular intelligence" and describing a method of testing for it . You know, how a scientist would go about it. All you have to do is follow the guidelines given to you, repeatedly, by N.Wells.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5085
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2017,17:01   

I emailed for reliable advice on a draft for a new PowerPoint page that explains hypotheses, models, theories and laws. It also contains an example of "weaknesses" in the Darwinian model/theory, as is more or less being made fashionable by new state bills now in circulation around the US. This does not help the DI's problem of leaving the model/mechanism up to the religious imagination, but it's a good thing for a scientific model/theory of ID that does not need to do that.

In any event, through a far more functional understanding of how science works it is possible to do just fine getting through the current political climate.

--------------
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: 394
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,03:05   

Quote
I emailed for reliable advice on a draft for a new PowerPoint page that explains hypotheses, models, theories and laws. It also contains an example of "weaknesses" in the Darwinian model/theory, as is more or less being made fashionable by new state bills now in circulation around the US. This does not help the DI's problem of leaving the model/mechanism up to the religious imagination, but it's a good thing for a scientific model/theory of ID that does not need to do that.

In any event, through a far more functional understanding of how science works it is possible to do just fine getting through the current political climate.


Ah! The fundie's last resort! Redefine the words to mean what he  wants them to mean!



Quote
This does not help the DI's problem of leaving the model/mechanism up to the religious imagination, but it's a good thing for a scientific model/theory of ID that does not need to do that.


So says the religious Gaulin who is trying to force an "Intelligent Designer" into science. Who bases his Pile-o'-crap on the Trinity. Oh no, not a religious "theory" at all.

So as you will not answer my chemistry questions, Gaulin, who is this "Designer"?

  
k.e..



Posts: 3805
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,10:26   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 20 2017,11:05)
 
Quote
I emailed for reliable advice on a draft for a new PowerPoint page that explains hypotheses, models, theories and laws. It also contains an example of "weaknesses" in the Darwinian model/theory, as is more or less being made fashionable by new state bills now in circulation around the US. This does not help the DI's problem of leaving the model/mechanism up to the religious imagination, but it's a good thing for a scientific model/theory of ID that does not need to do that.

In any event, through a far more functional understanding of how science works it is possible to do just fine getting through the current political climate.


Ah! The fundie's last resort! Redefine the words to mean what he  wants them to mean!



   
Quote
This does not help the DI's problem of leaving the model/mechanism up to the religious imagination, but it's a good thing for a scientific model/theory of ID that does not need to do that.


So says the religious Gaulin who is trying to force an "Intelligent Designer" into science. Who bases his Pile-o'-crap on the Trinity. Oh no, not a religious "theory" at all.

So as you will not answer my chemistry questions, Gaulin, who is this "Designer"?

I've got that. "Trinity" .



Quote
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2501
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,11:53   

Shiva is a scrubbing bubble?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
  17744 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (592) < ... 584 585 586 587 588 [589] 590 591 592 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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