RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (359) < ... 331 332 333 334 335 [336] 337 338 339 340 341 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2018,22:17   

I try to notice it these days because they write links like an elementary kid reading sentences with no understanding of emphasis, and it happens often. But if you go to the address bar and take the less than br greater than out, the link will work correctly.

Curiously, sometimes the link will be barely short enough to work for an original post, but then gets broken every time it's quoted.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2018,22:30   

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2018,23:10)
Quote (clamboy @ May 20 2018,22:57)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2018,12:36)
 
Quote
233
Allan KeithMay 20, 2018 at 9:50 am
ET,
   
Quote

There cannot be a Gish gallop on a blog or discussion forum.

Wiki begs to differ:
   
Quote

”In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved.”


[URL=https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/answering-aks-claims-a-the-so-called-gish-gallop-is-an-id-technique-and-b-evil-is-a-concep




t-fabricated-by-religion/#comment-658546]How has joe done this for 20 years without learning anything?[/URL]

Much as I thank you for providing links, this one leads to a 404 error at UD, which unfortunately often happens when I follow your links.

But let me add, that is only my experience.

No it's not just you. UD likes to give real long dumb links to their posts, and when you paste it the ikonboard software, ikonboard puts a line break into it. When I notice that's happened, I convert it to a shorter link with a service like tiny url. But if it happens and you want to see the unbroken link, go up to the address bar and you'll see something like
Code Sample

"https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/answering-aks-claims-a-the-so-called-gish-gallop-is-an-id-technique-and-b-evil-is-a-
concep<br>t-fabricated-by-religion/#comment-658546


see where it says
Code Sample
<br>
? that's the offending part. delete those four characters in the address bar and the link will work. It's a board software bug.

reposting this on the next page in case some people miss it.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2018,22:39   

vmahuna's 0 for 2:  

OK, but how (and why) did whales get the optional INTERNAL testicles?

By cooling blood that then cools the testes.  Learn something.

For the grammarians out there, some centuries ago some clerk screwed up the distinction between “astrology” (the study of stars) and “astronomy” (the study of the influence of stars).

Yeah, right, one scribe gets it wrong and it changes entirely.  Etymonline on "astronomy":

Quote
In English, it is earlier than astrology and originally included the senses now distributed over both words; the gradual differentiation happened 16c.-17c. In Latin and later Greek, astronomia tended to be more scientific than astrologia.


https://www.etymonline.com/word.......tronomy

I thought it would be worth making responses to both, as a number of people might not know better.  A few might get here and learn something.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2146
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,03:38   

groovamos strikes another blow for open mindedness.  You'll have to go to the link to get the evidence, which is on youtube:

Quote
So logically one could say:

(1) ibogaine success rate is the highest of all treatments for addiction
(2) key to success of ibogaine is the subjects’ experiences in the sessions.
(3) Some subjects experience a representation of the bodies of the solar system in the unconscious.
(4) It would be closed minded to reject astrology out of hand, and so I refuse to do so as do the so-called open-minded materialists.

One more thing. A reminder of all of the controversy over the Mars effect which has held up to statistics and which has been the subject of a huge attack by scientific materialists over the decades. And has flummoxed CSICOP and caused defections from CSICOP.

Link

Edited to fix link.

Edited by CeilingCat on May 21 2018,03:42

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2288
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,03:54   

And in today's "wait, wut?"
Quote
Although the population genetics of Darwin’s theory denies the reliability of our observations of reality, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.

link

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2288
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,04:15   

ooh, two "wait wut"s today already.
Rob Sheldon is friends with some of the squid from space people. He also give us this gem, about Superman (and other SF):
Quote
But more importantly, perhaps our art, our films, our dreams, our aspirations are not ours, but inherited from men and women who once knew these things to be true. It’s called epigenetic memories. And when a film taps into them, it becomes a classic.


--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,10:12   

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 21 2018,05:15)
ooh, two "wait wut"s today already.
Rob Sheldon [URL=https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/panspermia-maybe-life-came-from-outer-space-is-back-in-progress-in-biophysics-and-molecula

r-biology/#comment-658577]is friends with some of the squid from space people[/URL]. He also give us this gem, about Superman (and other SF):
Quote
But more importantly, perhaps our art, our films, our dreams, our aspirations are not ours, but inherited from men and women who once knew these things to be true. It’s called epigenetic memories. And when a film taps into them, it becomes a classic.

I thought the next bits were even 'better':

Quote
Many of the arguments in this paper on octupi, were ones that I plead with Chandra Wickramasinghe personally. I felt he was playing it too safe. He may or may not remember my passionate defense of horizontal gene transport as essential to panspermia. At the time, I think Hoyle and Arrhenius were arguing for bacteria moving between worlds. It’s nice to see a convergence on viruses as the probable vector.

I also argued that for the universe to be designed to make Earth, there had to be staging planets. Places that specialized in one kind of life, say, trilobites. All of these staging points were to “boot up” life on Earth the way Windows10 “boots up” from a PROM on the motherboard. Check out the SPIE comet papers at rbsp.info/rbs/RbS


linky

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,10:26   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2018,10:12)
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 21 2018,05:15)
ooh, two "wait wut"s today already.
Rob Sheldon [URL=https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/panspermia-maybe-life-came-from-outer-space-is-back-in-progress-in-biophysics-and-molecula


r-biology/#comment-658577]is friends with some of the squid from space people[/URL]. He also give us this gem, about Superman (and other SF):
 
Quote
But more importantly, perhaps our art, our films, our dreams, our aspirations are not ours, but inherited from men and women who once knew these things to be true. It’s called epigenetic memories. And when a film taps into them, it becomes a classic.

I thought the next bits were even 'better':

Quote
Many of the arguments in this paper on octupi, were ones that I plead with Chandra Wickramasinghe personally. I felt he was playing it too safe. He may or may not remember my passionate defense of horizontal gene transport as essential to panspermia. At the time, I think Hoyle and Arrhenius were arguing for bacteria moving between worlds. It’s nice to see a convergence on viruses as the probable vector.

I also argued that for the universe to be designed to make Earth, there had to be staging planets. Places that specialized in one kind of life, say, trilobites. All of these staging points were to “boot up” life on Earth the way Windows10 “boots up” from a PROM on the motherboard. Check out the SPIE comet papers at rbsp.info/rbs/RbS


linky

Sheldon:

Quote
Thanks News! It’s nice to get a fair hearing.


I think he needs an unfair hearing for a positive reaction.  

Fortunately for him, it is UD.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
JohnW



Posts: 3074
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,11:14   

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 21 2018,02:15)
ooh, two "wait wut"s today already.
Rob Sheldon [URL=https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/panspermia-maybe-life-came-from-outer-space-is-back-in-progress-in-biophysics-and-molecula

r-biology/#comment-658577]is friends with some of the squid from space people[/URL]. He also give us this gem, about Superman (and other SF):
Quote
But more importantly, perhaps our art, our films, our dreams, our aspirations are not ours, but inherited from men and women who once knew these things to be true. It’s called epigenetic memories. And when a film taps into them, it becomes a classic.

UD is an epigenetic memory of the early Precambrian, before brains evolved.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
clamboy



Posts: 253
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,11:46   

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2018,22:30)
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2018,23:10)
Quote (clamboy @ May 20 2018,22:57)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2018,12:36)
   
Quote
233
Allan KeithMay 20, 2018 at 9:50 am
ET,
   
Quote

There cannot be a Gish gallop on a blog or discussion forum.

Wiki begs to differ:
   
Quote

”In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved.”


[URL=https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/answering-aks-claims-a-the-so-called-gish-gallop-is-an-id-technique-and-b-evil-is-a-concep





t-fabricated-by-religion/#comment-658546]How has joe done this for 20 years without learning anything?[/URL]

Much as I thank you for providing links, this one leads to a 404 error at UD, which unfortunately often happens when I follow your links.

But let me add, that is only my experience.

No it's not just you. UD likes to give real long dumb links to their posts, and when you paste it the ikonboard software, ikonboard puts a line break into it. When I notice that's happened, I convert it to a shorter link with a service like tiny url. But if it happens and you want to see the unbroken link, go up to the address bar and you'll see something like
Code Sample

"https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/answering-aks-claims-a-the-so-called-gish-gallop-is-an-id-technique-and-b-evil-is-a-
concep<br>t-fabricated-by-religion/#comment-658546


see where it says
Code Sample
<br>
? that's the offending part. delete those four characters in the address bar and the link will work. It's a board software bug.

reposting this on the next page in case some people miss it.

Thank you! Yes, those UD links are foolishly outdated in their construction. But then, most everything there is...

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,12:11   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2018,10:12)
     
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 21 2018,05:15)
ooh, two "wait wut"s today already.
Rob Sheldon [URL=https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/panspermia-maybe-life-came-from-outer-space-is-back-in-progress-in-biophysics-and-molecula









r-biology/#comment-658577]is friends with some of the squid from space people[/URL]. He also give us this gem, about Superman (and other SF):
       
Quote
But more importantly, perhaps our art, our films, our dreams, our aspirations are not ours, but inherited from men and women who once knew these things to be true. It’s called epigenetic memories. And when a film taps into them, it becomes a classic.


Could Sheldon be?



--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,13:00   

Quote
24
Allan KeithMay 21, 2018 at 10:49 am
Eric,
Quote

I’m so tired of these pathetic bad design arguments.

Bad design is not an argument. It is a prediction. Actually, it is sub-optimal “solutions” that are the prediction. Human eyes, abdominal wall, external testicles etc. are all suboptimal solutions, but they still function as well as they have to for survival and population growth.

ID can certainly address this by hypothesizing about the constraints and limitations of the designer, but nobody is willing to do so. I can understand why people who believe that their Christian god is the designer would not do so. It would undermine the mythology that god is all powerful and all knowing. What is baffling, however, is why all of the ID proponents who believe that the designer is not god have not done so. Is it possible that such people simply don’t exist under the ID tent?


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,13:59   

Quote
Correcting trolls, 3: Wikipedia blunders yet again — “Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact”
May 21, 2018 Posted by kairosfocus under Correcting trollish fallacies, Philosophy, Science, science education, warrant, knowledge, science and belief


if you're like me, you just can't keep up with all the breathtaking new ID science UD reports on.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,14:01   

no surprise, writing-links-like-a-bad-student-reading-in-class seems linked to kf. Here's the actual link i just shortened for that last post:

Code Sample
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/correcting-trolls-3-wikipedia-blunders-yet-again-unlike-hypotheses-theories-and-laws-may-b
e-simply-referred-to-as-scientific-fact/

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,14:04   

Quote
31
MungMay 21, 2018 at 12:16 pm
God does not have testicles, so she wasn’t really aware of the consequences of that design.


BatShit77's gonna break his ctrl-V responding to that shit.  :p

   
Henry J



Posts: 5123
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,14:11   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2018,13:04)
Quote
31
MungMay 21, 2018 at 12:16 pm
God does not have testicles, so she wasn’t really aware of the consequences of that design.


BatShit77's gonna break his ctrl-V responding to that shit.  :p

You mean he wouldn't just say "wrong pronoun"? :p

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,14:37   

polistra:

     
Quote
Seems like everyone is missing the obvious reason for external testicles.

Display.

This is equally valid if you assume mutation or design.


KF agrees @ 32:  "Display is probably right, as defects will be readily apparent. KF"

Dumb.  Why don't lizards display testes, or birds, marine mammals, elephants, or aardvarks?

Testes can be used in display, but it hardly seems common (in many species there is little or no display to females, rather the winner of male to male display, or of combat, takes them).  There are ideas other than absolute temperature bandied about for explaining "external testes," but I think the good ones have something to do with temperature.  One is that while spermatozoa are held at a lower temperature in the epididymus of the testis they are relatively inactive, while in the vagina they're warmed and activated.  

I don't know, though, why do elephants with lower body temperatures than ours retain testes in the body cavity?  Wouldn't an increase in temperature be needed to activate their sperm, if that's the case for other mammals?  Yet, on the contrary, couldn't sperm easily be activated by something other than temperature anyway, pH or some other chemical change?  Why evolve to use temperature for activating sperm, when that requires the descent of the testes and their exposure to danger in the scrotum?

Activation by warming in the vagina is still a better idea than display, though.  Mostly males display secondary sexual characteristics, not primary sexual characteristics.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,15:25   

Quote (Henry J @ May 21 2018,15:11)
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2018,13:04)
Quote
31
MungMay 21, 2018 at 12:16 pm
God does not have testicles, so she wasn’t really aware of the consequences of that design.


BatShit77's gonna break his ctrl-V responding to that shit.  :p

You mean he wouldn't just say "wrong pronoun"? :p

If he did he's need no fewer than 3 Einstein Youtube videos, and 4 excerpts from archimedes, Tolstoy, Joan dArc, Maimonides, Plato, the King James Version of the bible, a Vimeo of Joel Osteen,...

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,15:30   

BatShit77's the only person in the world with a personal account for custom Cherry MX Ctrl-V switches made from reinforced Boron Nitride.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,21:01   

Quote
39
Allan KeithMay 21, 2018 at 4:33 pm
ET,
Quote

So what? A female can tell a male from female and a boy from a man just by looking at the testicles.

Was that often a problem during your dating years?


linky

Edited by stevestory on May 21 2018,22:02

   
Lethean



Posts: 204
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,21:19   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2018,14:04)
     
Quote
31
MungMay 21, 2018 at 12:16 pm
God does not have testicles, so she wasn’t really aware of the consequences of that design.


BatShit77's gonna break his ctrl-V responding to that shit.  :p


Reminds me of a prolific commenter on the IMDb's message boards (yes, the movie site) who was a favorite of FSTDT for a while. Not only did he create some epic rants of tard whilst being trolled by the dozens, he used to insist that god has a penis. Not just any penis but a holy righteous penis.

Then came the announcement that IMDb was shutting down and removing the message boards. His meltdowns at the end were spectacular wherein he lamented all of his great arguments and all the information he spent years posting exposing the evils and falsehoods of evolutionists being deleted.

I can't for the life of me recall his name which is a bummer. I would've liked to look him up and quote him but apparently the database for FSTDT has been corrupted (or something) and has been down for a couple of weeks now with no news from the new admin/owner. Everyone is in the dark on the matter.  :(

--------------
"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~

  
Lethean



Posts: 204
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,21:40   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 21 2018,14:37)
polistra:

         
Quote
Seems like everyone is missing the obvious reason for external testicles.

Display.

This is equally valid if you assume mutation or design.


KF agrees @ 32:  "Display is probably right, as defects will be readily apparent. KF"

<...>

Glen Davidson


How else ya gonna keep 'em out of the temple ?

Levitcus 21

 
Quote
16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.


Same goes for animal/burnt offerings in Leviticus 22. Totally not rad if the nads are bad.

So, if you design them on the inside you just set up your worshipers to fail and we all know that the Designer would never do that.

Or something.

--------------
"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~

  
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,21:40   

Quote (Lethean @ May 21 2018,22:19)
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2018,14:04)
     
Quote
31
MungMay 21, 2018 at 12:16 pm
God does not have testicles, so she wasn’t really aware of the consequences of that design.


BatShit77's gonna break his ctrl-V responding to that shit.  :p


Reminds me of a prolific commenter on the IMDb's message boards (yes, the movie site) who was a favorite of FSTDT for a while. Not only did he create some epic rants of tard whilst being trolled by the dozens, he used to insist that god has a penis. Not just any penis but a holy righteous penis.

Then came the announcement that IMDb was shutting down and removing the message boards. His meltdowns at the end were spectacular wherein he lamented all of his great arguments and all the information he spent years posting exposing the evils and falsehoods of evolutionists being deleted.

I can't for the life of me recall his name which is a bummer. I would've liked to look him up and quote him but apparently the database for FSTDT has been corrupted (or something) and has been down for a couple of weeks now with no news from the new admin/owner. Everyone is in the dark on the matter.  :(

:O

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2912
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2018,22:16   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 21 2018,12:37)
Activation by warming in the vagina is still a better idea than display, though.  

Glen Davidson

Words to live by.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2288
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2018,02:34   

Right in the nuts
Quote
39
Allan Keith May 21, 2018 at 4:33 pm

ET,

Quote
So what? A female can tell a male from female and a boy from a man just by looking at the testicles.


Was that often a problem during your dating years?


--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2146
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2018,03:46   

I wonder if KF or any other IDer knows that "testament" is derived from "testical"?

Just tell him to Google "testament testical" if he doubts you.

I wonder if KF is an Old Testical or New Testical man?  I'm guessing Old Testical.

Oh yes, in OT times you also used to swear oaths while holding your testicles.  (The King James Version  bowdlerises this to “grasping the thigh”.)  I'd guess that most of the UDers don't do that any more, although I can't be sure about ET.

Just in case ba77 reads this, he always appreciates some Bible verses:

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)

So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1 Kings 21:21 (KJV)

Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,

2 Kings 9:8 (KJV)

For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel:

1 Samuel 25:34 (KJV)

For in very deed, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1 Kings 14:10 (KJV)

Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

1 Kings 16:11 (KJV)

And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2018,04:41   

Since the whole "fact" issue comes up often enough, I'd note that the first definition that the web OED has for "fact" is this:

1A thing that is known or proved to be true.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definit........act

I think that's about right.  F=ma is a fact, that life has evolved is a fact.  KF is muddled about the issue because, well, he's KF, but also because Wiki's claim that laws and theories being called "facts" is a bit strange.  I mean, is evolutionary theory a fact?  Other than that it exists (or at least a bunch of ideas that we call a theory does, but it is more like ecology and its models, which usually aren't called theories), not exactly.  It states facts, it explains facts.  It seems like it's better to say that evolution as a process (or set of processes) is a fact in the sense that it's a process that has occurred and does occur, while evolutionary theory is a theory about that fact, about the facts involved.

E=mc^2 presumably is a fact, one more correct than the empiric facts that support that claim, but again, is the theory of relativity a fact, other than it factually exists?  I don't know if it's wrong to say that the theory of relativity is a fact, but it's weird to say that it's a fact.  It's a conception, a model about facts.

To be sure, one problem is that "fact" itself is a rather slippery idea, and it simply isn't the preferred term for discussing theories, laws, and data.  Indeed, "evidence" and "data" are more typically favored over "fact," and while those may be heavily affected by theories and models, where theory ends and the evidence for it begins seems more clear with those terms than with a term like "fact."

I think that "fact" is usually understood as a sort of "truth" too much for science to be comfortable using it instead of "evidence" or "data."  We'd rather not call a theory a "fact" because it could be wrong altogether, but maybe even more importantly, because it has a much better chance of being partly wrong (established theories almost never will be entirely wrong).  We're not really tempted to call a theory evidence or data, so again, better those terms than "facts."

So in a sense, I'd like to say that science should just not use the term "fact."  Except it's not really possible to avoid it altogether, because people "want the facts" and it's just too common a term to expunge from science and its interface with the public.  I think, then, that we can say that it's a fact that life has evolved, and a fact that E=mc^2, but that evolutionary theory and relativity theory themselves are ways of modeling, conceiving, and understanding such facts.  And, importantly, relativity theory is not a fact, and evolutionary theory is not a fact, because both are ways of understanding multiple facts.  They contain multiple facts.  They may help to produce multiple facts that science--and the courts--can use as evidence.  

Laws state facts.  Theories do too, but they're different linguistically in that they're articulations of many facts, and thus they state facts and the relationships of facts.  We don't typically call a theory a fact because theories both contain and are about facts.  

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
LarTanner



Posts: 31
Joined: Dec. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2018,07:43   

DATCG contributes to the annals of the self-unaware:
Quote
hmmmm, how much is being spent to find something that may not exist?<

He's referring to Hawking radiation, but I would venture that any effort related to Hawking radiation is the tiniest blip compared to the amount of time spent trying to find God, Jesus, angels, souls, and so forth.

Link

  
stevestory



Posts: 11094
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2018,09:40   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 22 2018,05:41)
Since the whole "fact" issue comes up often enough, I'd note that the first definition that the web OED has for "fact" is this:

1A thing that is known or proved to be true.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definit........act

I think that's about right.  F=ma is a fact, that life has evolved is a fact.  KF is muddled about the issue because, well, he's KF, but also because Wiki's claim that laws and theories being called "facts" is a bit strange.  I mean, is evolutionary theory a fact?  Other than that it exists (or at least a bunch of ideas that we call a theory does, but it is more like ecology and its models, which usually aren't called theories), not exactly.  It states facts, it explains facts.  It seems like it's better to say that evolution as a process (or set of processes) is a fact in the sense that it's a process that has occurred and does occur, while evolutionary theory is a theory about that fact, about the facts involved.

E=mc^2 presumably is a fact, one more correct than the empiric facts that support that claim, but again, is the theory of relativity a fact, other than it factually exists?  I don't know if it's wrong to say that the theory of relativity is a fact, but it's weird to say that it's a fact.  It's a conception, a model about facts.

To be sure, one problem is that "fact" itself is a rather slippery idea, and it simply isn't the preferred term for discussing theories, laws, and data.  Indeed, "evidence" and "data" are more typically favored over "fact," and while those may be heavily affected by theories and models, where theory ends and the evidence for it begins seems more clear with those terms than with a term like "fact."

I think that "fact" is usually understood as a sort of "truth" too much for science to be comfortable using it instead of "evidence" or "data."  We'd rather not call a theory a "fact" because it could be wrong altogether, but maybe even more importantly, because it has a much better chance of being partly wrong (established theories almost never will be entirely wrong).  We're not really tempted to call a theory evidence or data, so again, better those terms than "facts."

So in a sense, I'd like to say that science should just not use the term "fact."  Except it's not really possible to avoid it altogether, because people "want the facts" and it's just too common a term to expunge from science and its interface with the public.  I think, then, that we can say that it's a fact that life has evolved, and a fact that E=mc^2, but that evolutionary theory and relativity theory themselves are ways of modeling, conceiving, and understanding such facts.  And, importantly, relativity theory is not a fact, and evolutionary theory is not a fact, because both are ways of understanding multiple facts.  They contain multiple facts.  They may help to produce multiple facts that science--and the courts--can use as evidence.  

Laws state facts.  Theories do too, but they're different linguistically in that they're articulations of many facts, and thus they state facts and the relationships of facts.  We don't typically call a theory a fact because theories both contain and are about facts.  

Glen Davidson

Language is vague so something can be a theory and a fact at the same time. Gravity is a theory and a fact. It's a fact in the sense that if i throw a brick off the Chrysler Building it'll fall to the ground. That's the fact of gravity. Gravity is also the theory that it does so according to F=(G*m1*m2)/r^2, and it's also another theory that blah blah General Relativity blah blah. Evolution is the same way. It's a fact that things evolve and have evolved, and evolution is also the theory that this happened because of natural selection blah blah random mutation blah blah genetic drift.

   
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 405
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2018,09:54   

Quote (CeilingCat @ May 22 2018,02:46)
I wonder if KF or any other IDer knows that "testament" is derived from "testical"?

A reknowned professor of dead languages I was fortunate enough to study under would comment that the base translation of testicles was "little witnesses" and that they were likely named thus as they were always at the scene of the crime.

--------------
"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"

  
  10741 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (359) < ... 331 332 333 334 335 [336] 337 338 339 340 341 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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