RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 4794
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,10:19   

Gary,

Quote
Show me this theory you have that explains "intelligent cause" and so forth, which must exist for your statement to be true.


You first need to explain what the heck the "theory" of "intelligent cause" is supposed to explain. Until you've done that, demanding that other people account for something that you seem to have just made up, just doesn't work.

So far it seems to be only adding unnecessary wordage to what current theory already says.

1) What exactly is this alleged theory? i.e., what does "intelligent cause" even mean?

2) What pattern(s) of consistently observed evidence is it supposed to explain?

3) How do those patterns follow logically from the clearly stated premise in step 1?

4) How does any of this differ from the predictions of current theory?

(Or is asking for a clearly stated premise too much to ask?)

Oh, and for step 1, do NOT say that something is "best explained" by something else (that would be like making a promise to give the actual explanation later); state the actual explanation that you are proposing.

Quote
Discovery of one anomaly would not force Darwinian theory to be immediately thrown out of science, therefore you did not "falsify" it.

Did you actually read what OgreMkv posted above? Single verified anomolies wouldn't overturn something supported by millions of pieces of evidence. What they would do is imply limits on its applicability. Falsification of a firmly established theory would require a huge amount of conflicting evidence at a basic level. Take Newton's laws as an example; later discoveries put limits on their applicability, yet people keep using them within those limits. My guess is that something analogous to a verified pre-Cambrian rabbit would do something similar.

Henry

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,12:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,22:27)
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

Absolutely not.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,13:14   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 17 2012,12:40)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,22:27)
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

Absolutely not.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in that one.

--------------
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: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,13:49   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 17 2012,10:19)
Gary,

 
Quote
Show me this theory you have that explains "intelligent cause" and so forth, which must exist for your statement to be true.


You first need to explain what the heck the "theory" of "intelligent cause" is supposed to explain. Until you've done that, demanding that other people account for something that you seem to have just made up, just doesn't work.

So far it seems to be only adding unnecessary wordage to what current theory already says.

1) What exactly is this alleged theory? i.e., what does "intelligent cause" even mean?

2) What pattern(s) of consistently observed evidence is it supposed to explain?

3) How do those patterns follow logically from the clearly stated premise in step 1?

4) How does any of this differ from the predictions of current theory?

(Or is asking for a clearly stated premise too much to ask?)

Oh, and for step 1, do NOT say that something is "best explained" by something else (that would be like making a promise to give the actual explanation later); state the actual explanation that you are proposing.

 
Quote
Discovery of one anomaly would not force Darwinian theory to be immediately thrown out of science, therefore you did not "falsify" it.

Did you actually read what OgreMkv posted above? Single verified anomolies wouldn't overturn something supported by millions of pieces of evidence. What they would do is imply limits on its applicability. Falsification of a firmly established theory would require a huge amount of conflicting evidence at a basic level. Take Newton's laws as an example; later discoveries put limits on their applicability, yet people keep using them within those limits. My guess is that something analogous to a verified pre-Cambrian rabbit would do something similar.

Henry

I could spend another year explaining things over and over again, and you will still be just as unqualified to judge it.

The theory references David Heisrman, Arnold Trehub and others you have not even heard of. Needing to state "you seem to have just made up" only helps show that only care about stopping the theory, and I have had enough years of this sick game you and others have been playing.

Do yourself a favor and take the honest review (not the dishonest vandalism from your buddies) seriously:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,13:55   



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,13:57   

How many people does it take to "not get" your "theory" before the penny drops that it might not be the rest of the world's fault?

Proponents: Gary
People who "don't get it": Everyone - Gary.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,14:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,13:14)
 
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 17 2012,12:40)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,22:27)
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

Absolutely not.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in that one.

Project much?

Of course, I'm merely pointing out a fact. A flow chart or a model cannot be, by definition, a scientific theory. Many hereon (including myself) have explained why. That you do not accept that is not our problem nor science's problem in general.

In fact, here you go Gary. This point from over a month ago still applies.

ETA: Gary, here's a hint concerning why your words do not constitute a theory. From your link:

Quote
...explains the emergent origin of biological diversity and complexity of life on Earth (and detection of these features elsewhere in our Universe)...


Here's the problem Gary - nowhere in any of the drivel you've posted have you provided any actual explanation for anything. At all. You've provided a model that can be constructed to mirror biological life, but that in and of itself does not explain anything. You even said it yourself: " How much insight into how insects work that a person gains from the theory depends on what they knew about them before." In other words, your model only reflects accuracy based upon the accuracy of the explanations that the user brings to the table. It doesn't provide any kind of explanation on its own.

Bottom line - nothing in anything you've posted even approaches the concept of a theory.

Edited by Robin on Dec. 17 2012,14:31

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,14:53   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 17 2012,14:12)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,13:14)
   
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 17 2012,12:40)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,22:27)
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

Absolutely not.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in that one.

Project much?

Of course, I'm merely pointing out a fact. A flow chart or a model cannot be, by definition, a scientific theory. Many hereon (including myself) have explained why. That you do not accept that is not our problem nor science's problem in general.

In fact, here you go Gary. This point from over a month ago still applies.

ETA: Gary, here's a hint concerning why your words do not constitute a theory. From your link:

Quote
...explains the emergent origin of biological diversity and complexity of life on Earth (and detection of these features elsewhere in our Universe)...


Here's the problem Gary - nowhere in any of the drivel you've posted have you provided any actual explanation for anything. At all. You've provided a model that can be constructed to mirror biological life, but that in and of itself does not explain anything. You even said it yourself: " How much insight into how insects work that a person gains from the theory depends on what they knew about them before." In other words, your model only reflects accuracy based upon the accuracy of the explanations that the user brings to the table. It doesn't provide any kind of explanation on its own.

Bottom line - nothing in anything you've posted even approaches the concept of a theory.

That is just another pompous lecture, from another irresponsible science-stopper.

In my opinion action needs to be taken, before they are funded/allowed to do any more damage to the rest of us.

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

   
damitall



Posts: 331
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,14:53   

It's an absolutely hopeless task asking Giggles to explain anything.

He doesn't  understand the word "explain"

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,14:57   

Evolution overturned!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,14:57   

Evolution overturned!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,15:12   

Gary, you still haven't answered my question.  Why is that?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,15:14   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 17 2012,14:57)
Evolution overturned!

Or in other words: Quick! Move the goalposts so that clubhouse requirements for a scientific theory changes back to overturning evolution again!

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,15:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,15:53)
In my opinion action needs to be taken, before they are funded/allowed to do any more damage to the rest of us.

how fascinating, an opinion.  tell me, giggles darling, what sorts of "action" needs to be taken, you know, in your opinion?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,15:37   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2012,15:12)
Gary, you still haven't answered my question.  Why is that?

I am not going to spend another year going in circles inside yet another sit-and-spin inquisition.

You still did not falsify your Darwinian theory like has been expected of me (only backtracked so you get to play by different set of rules) so just enjoy the dose of your own medicine...

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

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,15:38   

[quote=GaryGaulin,Dec. 17 2012,14:53][/quote]
Quote
That is just another pompous lecture, from another irresponsible science-stopper.


And yet, you don't have the wits or wherewithal to actually address the single main point in my "pompous lecture". Oddly, all it would take to embarrass me would be for you to post...wait for it...your alleged explanation. Oddly, you post your opinion (again) instead. Yawn...

Quote
In my opinion action needs to be taken, before they are funded/allowed to do any more damage to the rest of us.


Oh no no no, Gary, you are far too kind and lavish on me (and the other "they") far too much credit! My role in your befuddlement 'tis but a trifle. Nay my good man, your damage is pretty much solely of your own making!

Oh...and Gary? I'm already funded. Or at least the work I do is. Want to know why? Because the ecological work I do actually meets the parameters of actual science and follows an actual theory with an actual explanation. Odd that that simple truth seems to elude you. So good luck getting your definition of "science" accepted.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
damitall



Posts: 331
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,15:46   

I've not seen Giggles quite so rattled and snarky before. Perhaps reality is intruding and he's realising that his "theory" really is useless.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,15:51   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 17 2012,15:38)
[quote=GaryGaulin,Dec. 17 2012,14:53][/quote]
 
Quote
That is just another pompous lecture, from another irresponsible science-stopper.


And yet, you don't have the wits or wherewithal to actually address the single main point in my "pompous lecture". Oddly, all it would take to embarrass me would be for you to post...wait for it...your alleged explanation. Oddly, you post your opinion (again) instead. Yawn...

 
Quote
In my opinion action needs to be taken, before they are funded/allowed to do any more damage to the rest of us.


Oh no no no, Gary, you are far too kind and lavish on me (and the other "they") far too much credit! My role in your befuddlement 'tis but a trifle. Nay my good man, your damage is pretty much solely of your own making!

Oh...and Gary? I'm already funded. Or at least the work I do is. Want to know why? Because the ecological work I do actually meets the parameters of actual science and follows an actual theory with an actual explanation. Odd that that simple truth seems to elude you. So good luck getting your definition of "science" accepted.

You would't be so smug where you were at equal mercy of incompetents who shut you off from all funding then discredited the hell out of your work because they have an issue with your theory.

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,15:57   

Gary...

YOU said science was not falsification or naturalism... so I asked what is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic or methodical?

You haven't answered that question.

Again, I listed 5 things that would have falsified evolution.  All five have been tested and found to support evolutionary theory, not disprove it.

You seem to misunderstand what falsification means.  I think you means that it is falsified.  It doesn't.  In science terms, it means that some information would falsify the hypothesis if that information is found to be true.

Evolution is certainly falsifiable, the simple fact that is has never been falsified just means that it has a lot of evidential support.  

But I understand that you don't care about how things actually work and pretend that things are the way you wish they are.

Back to my question THAT YOU BROUGHT UP... What is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?  

Name one advancement that is not naturalistic.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,16:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,20:04)
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

I contacted my colleagues at the CDC and the NIH and here are their replies:

Alec Baldwin:  "Don't count on it.  My reply is no."

Steve Baldwin:  "My sources say no.  Outlook not so good.  Very doubtful."

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,16:23   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2012,15:57)
Gary...

YOU said science was not falsification or naturalism... so I asked what is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic or methodical?

You haven't answered that question.

Again, I listed 5 things that would have falsified evolution.  All five have been tested and found to support evolutionary theory, not disprove it.

You seem to misunderstand what falsification means.  I think you means that it is falsified.  It doesn't.  In science terms, it means that some information would falsify the hypothesis if that information is found to be true.

Evolution is certainly falsifiable, the simple fact that is has never been falsified just means that it has a lot of evidential support.  

But I understand that you don't care about how things actually work and pretend that things are the way you wish they are.

Back to my question THAT YOU BROUGHT UP... What is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?  

Name one advancement that is not naturalistic.

I am busy with cognitive science work I do which actually meets the parameters of actual science and follows an actual theory with an actual explanation.

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content....75.long

No time for philosophy. Sorry..

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,16:31   

Quote (damitall @ Dec. 17 2012,15:46)
I've not seen Giggles quite so rattled and snarky before. Perhaps reality is intruding and he's realising that his "theory" really is useless.

But.. but... it's someone else's fault!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,16:42   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 17 2012,16:15)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,20:04)
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

I contacted my colleagues at the CDC and the NIH and here are their replies:

Alec Baldwin:  "Don't count on it.  My reply is no."

Steve Baldwin:  "My sources say no.  Outlook not so good.  Very doubtful."

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

If an opinion is that it is not "scientific theory" then I expect examples from the actual theory of operation text to show the scripture and all else that should instead be there. That's why I linked to the download page.

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,16:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,17:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2012,15:57)
Gary...

YOU said science was not falsification or naturalism... so I asked what is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic or methodical?

You haven't answered that question.

Again, I listed 5 things that would have falsified evolution.  All five have been tested and found to support evolutionary theory, not disprove it.

You seem to misunderstand what falsification means.  I think you means that it is falsified.  It doesn't.  In science terms, it means that some information would falsify the hypothesis if that information is found to be true.

Evolution is certainly falsifiable, the simple fact that is has never been falsified just means that it has a lot of evidential support.  

But I understand that you don't care about how things actually work and pretend that things are the way you wish they are.

Back to my question THAT YOU BROUGHT UP... What is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?  

Name one advancement that is not naturalistic.

I am busy with cognitive science work I do which actually meets the parameters of actual science and follows an actual theory with an actual explanation.

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content....75.long

No time for philosophy. Sorry..

So, you are busy with this work, is that what you are saying?  Do go on, please explain.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,16:53   

Bullshitter Gary is now equivocating on the word theory

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,16:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,17:42)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 17 2012,16:15)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,20:04)
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

I contacted my colleagues at the CDC and the NIH and here are their replies:

Alec Baldwin:  "Don't count on it.  My reply is no."

Steve Baldwin:  "My sources say no.  Outlook not so good.  Very doubtful."

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

If an opinion is that it is not "scientific theory" then I expect examples from the actual theory of operation text to show the scripture and all else that should instead be there. That's why I linked to the download page.

For gary, reading the fucking instruction manual = science theory

"SORRY MAW LEAVE ME ALONE I'LL COME DOWN FOR DINNER WHEN I GET DONE A-READIN MY THEORYS UP HERE IN THE BATHROOMS WITH DUH DOOR ALL LOCKED UP AND STUFF"

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,16:58   

Stop it. stop it all of you. Let Gaga do his science!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,17:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,16:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2012,15:57)
Gary...

YOU said science was not falsification or naturalism... so I asked what is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic or methodical?

You haven't answered that question.

Again, I listed 5 things that would have falsified evolution.  All five have been tested and found to support evolutionary theory, not disprove it.

You seem to misunderstand what falsification means.  I think you means that it is falsified.  It doesn't.  In science terms, it means that some information would falsify the hypothesis if that information is found to be true.

Evolution is certainly falsifiable, the simple fact that is has never been falsified just means that it has a lot of evidential support.  

But I understand that you don't care about how things actually work and pretend that things are the way you wish they are.

Back to my question THAT YOU BROUGHT UP... What is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?  

Name one advancement that is not naturalistic.

I am busy with cognitive science work I do which actually meets the parameters of actual science and follows an actual theory with an actual explanation.

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content....75.long

No time for philosophy. Sorry..

So, you're not even willing to defend your own statements?

Can I ask, how do you do cognitive experiments without being able to be cognitive?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5236
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,17:14   

This is turning out to be an awesome paper!

 
Quote
Taste Perception in Honey Bees

Maria Gabriela de Brito Sanchez

Université Paul Sabatier, Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale, 118 route de Narbonne, F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France

2CNRS, Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale, 118 route de Narbonne, F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France

Abstract

Taste is crucial for honeybees for choosing profitable food sources, resins, water sources, and for nestmate recognition. Peripheral taste detection occurs within cuticular hairs, the chaetic and basiconic sensilla, which host gustatory receptor cells and, usually a mechanoreceptor cell. Gustatory sensilla are mostly located on the distal segment of the antennae, on the mouthparts, and on the tarsi of the forelegs. These sensilla respond with varying sensitivity to sugars, salts, and possibly amino acids, proteins, and water. So far, no responses of receptor cells to bitter substances were found although inhibitory effects of these substances on sucrose receptor cells could be recorded. When bees are free to express avoidance behaviors, they reject highly concentrated bitter and saline solutions. However, such avoidance disappears when bees are immobilized in the laboratory. In this case, they ingest these solutions, even if they suffer afterward a malaise-like state or even die from such ingestion. Central processing of taste occurs mainly in the subesophageal ganglion, but the nature of this processing remains unknown. We suggest that coding tastants in terms of their hedonic value, thus classifying them in terms of their palatability, is a basic strategy that a central processing of taste should achieve for survival.


I am very sure I had no problem figuring out what the last sentence of the Abstract is saying. But seeing how I'm supposed to be lost in junk I just made up then everyone please set me straight, by explaining it all too me, especially how to most simply model that.

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

   
Tom A



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,17:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,16:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2012,15:57)
Gary...

YOU said science was not falsification or naturalism... so I asked what is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic or methodical?

You haven't answered that question.

Again, I listed 5 things that would have falsified evolution.  All five have been tested and found to support evolutionary theory, not disprove it.

You seem to misunderstand what falsification means.  I think you means that it is falsified.  It doesn't.  In science terms, it means that some information would falsify the hypothesis if that information is found to be true.

Evolution is certainly falsifiable, the simple fact that is has never been falsified just means that it has a lot of evidential support.  

But I understand that you don't care about how things actually work and pretend that things are the way you wish they are.

Back to my question THAT YOU BROUGHT UP... What is science if not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?  

Name one advancement that is not naturalistic.

I am busy with cognitive science work I do which actually meets the parameters of actual science and follows an actual theory with an actual explanation.

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content....75.long

No time for philosophy. Sorry..

So...your link implies that you are doing sensory research on bees.

In France.

Under a woman's name.

???

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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