RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (618) < ... 609 610 611 612 613 [614] 615 616 617 618 >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1823
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2018,12:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2018,01:13)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 13 2018,19:12)
I've always likened your stuff to Neato rather than Roomba.  Roomba is way more random in its navigation.

The more I think about what you said the more it seems like you are trying to get yourself a lucritive advertising gig going with Neato Robotics.

If true then go N.Wells go! That would certainly help make the expected "weird story" even weirder.

Oh and in neuroscience news is this new evidence for what the model/theory predicts is at least somehow possible:

www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/14/scientists-transplant-memories-between-sea-snails-via-injection

Since Darwinian theory accounts for this and more with a (still lacking better word) generalization stated like "inheritable morphological change over time" news like this is no problem at all. That though is not true for neuroscientific theories that now have to ultimately model in once unimaginable (more than generalization) specific detail that must now include both RNA and DNA networks of genetic systems. That's where science action pertaining to "intelligent cause" is happening. Neuroscience must follow the evidence into the area Darwinian theory explained from an outside view type perspective. They have entirely different tools and required vocabulary therefore one never replaces the other. For example: physics never replaced astronomy.

The future is in emerging areas of science where there are few experts, still at the ground floor and all that. In context of the "Weird Science" series requiring an obligatory Lisa: what we got is (as they say for human development) "coming of age" while DI's little junior he's still all in a rage. But did you notice he was come come coming of age too? At least in the video anyway.

1) Re Neato:  No, and I don't see how you reach that conclusion.

2) Re the possibility of "acquired memories" becoming encoded into RNA.  Well, maybe, but I don't see how "Darwinian theory" predicts this at all, since Darwin knew nothing about RNA or DNA.  Evolutionary theory predicts that if a new strip of DNA or RNA does something that confers an advantage to its owner, it will likely become more common in succeeding generations, but it doesn't predict that RNA should develop the ability to encode new memories and appropriate responses.  (It doesn't predict that this wouldn't occur either.)

3)  Similarly, I don't see how your model necessarily entails any predictions anywhere close to what the Guardian article is suggesting.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3025
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2018,14:52   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 15 2018,10:47)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2018,01:13)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 13 2018,19:12)
I've always likened your stuff to Neato rather than Roomba.  Roomba is way more random in its navigation.

The more I think about what you said the more it seems like you are trying to get yourself a lucritive advertising gig going with Neato Robotics.

If true then go N.Wells go! That would certainly help make the expected "weird story" even weirder.

Oh and in neuroscience news is this new evidence for what the model/theory predicts is at least somehow possible:

www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/14/scientists-transplant-memories-between-sea-snails-via-injection

Since Darwinian theory accounts for this and more with a (still lacking better word) generalization stated like "inheritable morphological change over time" news like this is no problem at all. That though is not true for neuroscientific theories that now have to ultimately model in once unimaginable (more than generalization) specific detail that must now include both RNA and DNA networks of genetic systems. That's where science action pertaining to "intelligent cause" is happening. Neuroscience must follow the evidence into the area Darwinian theory explained from an outside view type perspective. They have entirely different tools and required vocabulary therefore one never replaces the other. For example: physics never replaced astronomy.

The future is in emerging areas of science where there are few experts, still at the ground floor and all that. In context of the "Weird Science" series requiring an obligatory Lisa: what we got is (as they say for human development) "coming of age" while DI's little junior he's still all in a rage. But did you notice he was come come coming of age too? At least in the video anyway.

1) Re Neato:  No, and I don't see how you reach that conclusion.

2) Re the possibility of "acquired memories" becoming encoded into RNA.  Well, maybe, but I don't see how "Darwinian theory" predicts this at all, since Darwin knew nothing about RNA or DNA.  Evolutionary theory predicts that if a new strip of DNA or RNA does something that confers an advantage to its owner, it will likely become more common in succeeding generations, but it doesn't predict that RNA should develop the ability to encode new memories and appropriate responses.  (It doesn't predict that this wouldn't occur either.)

3)  Similarly, I don't see how your model necessarily entails any predictions anywhere close to what the Guardian article is suggesting.

He's using his well-worn copy of the creationist playbook again.

1.  Something is discovered.
2.  Current theory didn't explicitly predict it.
3.  Therefore current theory is completely wrong.
4.  Therefore our alternative (which makes no predictions at all) wins by default and supplants current theory.
5.  Therefore Jesus.

--------------
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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 515
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2018,00:38   

Quote
3)  Similarly, I don't see how your model necessarily entails any predictions anywhere close to what the Guardian article is suggesting.


You are being too kind, NWells, Gaulin's dreck contains no predictions.

Unless, that is, you translate 'predictions' as biblical prophesies. Then retrofit them into your pseudoscience to resemble predictions. Just like his Cambrian Explosion insertion.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5003
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2018,20:38   

What, you mean predictions of things already known don't count?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 515
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2018,02:44   

Quote
What, you mean predictions of things already known don't count?


Only in the religious circles inhabited by the likes of Gaulin.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2018,18:54   

The US public has apparently began to fight back against conspiracy theorists:

www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/six-more-families-sue-alex-jones-over-sandy-hook-conspiracy-n876881

Discovery Institute network may be next. For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam the theory is now caught up in, which makes such a thing impossible to be fully taken seriously, by those who not suffer from a fear filled addiction that does not respond to reason.

--------------
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: 515
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,09:26   

Quote
For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam the theory is now [...]


You used three words too many, Gaulin.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1823
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,16:09   

Quote
Discovery Institute network may be next. For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam the theory is now caught up in, which makes such a thing impossible to be fully taken seriously, by those who not suffer from a fear filled addiction that does not respond to reason.


"Intelligent design" comes from the Discovery Institute.  You have yet to demonstrate that there is any value to be had in reviving its corpse.  

Since it was fatally flawed in the original conception, resurrecting a new version with the old name seems profitless.  You might as well try to resurrect Nazi ideology, except a new compassionate and politically correct version, as opposed to the mistaken version unfortunately pushed by the regrettable Mr. Hitler.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1634
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,17:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 25 2018,16:09)
Quote
Discovery Institute network may be next. For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam the theory is now caught up in, which makes such a thing impossible to be fully taken seriously, by those who not suffer from a fear filled addiction that does not respond to reason.


"Intelligent design" comes from the Discovery Institute.  You have yet to demonstrate that there is any value to be had in reviving its corpse.  

Since it was fatally flawed in the original conception, resurrecting a new version with the old name seems profitless.  You might as well try to resurrect Nazi ideology, except a new compassionate and politically correct version, as opposed to the mistaken version unfortunately pushed by the regrettable Mr. Hitler.

Gary: From the Nazi Theory I have a model for making the trains run on time.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2018,19:58   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 25 2018,17:00)
Gary: From the Nazi Theory I have a model for making the trains run on time.

Do you recall what was in the booklet I found online that the Nazi party forced science teachers to teach from? Something about humans having been created in current form and all who evolved into another race are not what our creator intended?

A good system for quickly packing train cars full of people then running over anyone who gets in the way would certainly help keep the trains running on time.

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

   
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 57
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2018,06:22   

The point ===============>




Your head -> (o_O)


Or maybe you are just spouting gibberish to intentionally distract from the fact that you have precisely 0 arguments in defense of your other gibberish. Hard to tell at this point.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2018,12:27   

Instead of "evolved into another race" it would have perhaps been more precise to only say "had evolved".

Mr. Hitler clearly taught that humans were created in their present form and genetic change only made freaks of nature, which included anyone the political party for any reason wanted to exterminate.

--------------
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: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2018,14:49   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 25 2018,09:26)
 
Quote
For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam the theory is now [...]


You used three words too many, Gaulin.

Since the Discovery Institute had a premise for a theory but never presented a testable "scientific theory" it is now possible to remove the four trailing words that may suggest otherwise.

For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam.

There is again something in need of rescue, stuck in a bad situation. I found that proper nurturing of this (metaphorically speaking) results in transfer of the mind of a (as in Weird Science) Lisa. Knowledge is power. Therefore instead of creating a passive plaything to take advantage of: there is a strong mind that knows a scam when they see one and expects the respect they deserve, or else!

--------------
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: 515
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2018,01:02   

Quote
Since the Discovery Institute had a premise for a theory but never presented a testable "scientific theory"[..]


So when do we get to see your testable "scientific theory", Gaulin? We haven't seen one so far.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2018,02:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 25 2018,16:09)
 
Quote
Discovery Institute network may be next. For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam the theory is now caught up in, which makes such a thing impossible to be fully taken seriously, by those who not suffer from a fear filled addiction that does not respond to reason.


"Intelligent design" comes from the Discovery Institute.  You have yet to demonstrate that there is any value to be had in reviving its corpse.


The earlier mentioned Alex Jones is another profiting from the same "The theory of evolution is a fraud" hoax. What looks to you like a "corpse" is not yet dead. Even where it had begun to decompose the premise for an otherwise viable theory is not something that can be scooped up with a backhoe then buried in a hole.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 25 2018,16:09)
Since it was fatally flawed in the original conception, resurrecting a new version with the old name seems profitless.  You might as well try to resurrect Nazi ideology, except a new compassionate and politically correct version, as opposed to the mistaken version unfortunately pushed by the regrettable Mr. Hitler.


After having myself read how Nazi ideology presented Medalian genetics and divine creation in German science classes I'm confident that the DI already has all the compassionate looking ingredients properly mixed. They are just having a hard time achieving detonation, which in this case for them has a best case scenario that begins with easily enough brushed off mob riots, looting and mass murders.

It's no longer possible to fully control the communication media of a population, like Mr. Hitler eventually did. There are still problems from individuals and organizations that profit by repeating false information, in turn forming mobs who feel morally justified in brutal actions now including against parents who just lost their kids in a school massacre. In the Alex Jones case are the same misrepresentations of science that the Discovery Institute has been using, they are enabling each other.

This is maybe a good time to mention a recent topic that the Numenta forum pertaining to definitions for intelligence, where in my first reply I presented the scientific method pdf and avoided going into detail that gets me caught up in the ID controversy. Soon after it was indicated the definition must begin at the chemistry level. At that point I was forced to write a second reply containing more detail than I wanted to get into. But this time I did not link to the TheoryOfID.pdf or its blog, I instead right there presented all the needed information then had to link to the KCFS forum for the Christmas present topic crediting Kathy Martin too for an earlier related educational spin-off for science teachers from the Kansas Public School public hearing mayhem. The two replies are:

discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/4

discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/7

This example best shows what transferring scientific theory looks like. I had to send Kathy a link. It's for me still as in the public hearing days where she represents those she was elected to serve, not the Discovery Institute who like myself is one source of input but has no final say in anything. Spinoffs from the "fair hearing" event held on behalf of taxpayers of Kansas are a credit to the people who live there, not institute from Seattle.

It's no surprise that this complicated of an issue is still not yet fully resolved. But I expect the fate of Alex Jones and in turn his enablers will help show why the DI never presented a scientific theory at a public hearing where one was expected, then pointed fingers at Atheists as though they were suppressing their said to be scientific theory instead of using the time to at least as well as I did explain how an "intelligent cause" works in biology so that it can be taught in biology class.

Giving Kansas Public School officials and taxpaying public the responsibility of determining the scientific merit of "theory of intelligent design" created an official matter where the Jack Krebs led side of the issue through boycott and (lucky accident) DI supplied link to the KCFS forum left unresolved at that point and to from there online continue until one is finally achieved. It may not much matter to you but for those who were there including myself via internet it's something that very much matters, relating to how their statewide education system is by the rest of the world viewed.

What I can show is progress towards a scientifically useful model/theory that in turn helps explain why the premise that "got their foot in the door" was not the root cause of the trouble, it was from the DI never having presented a scientific "theory of intelligent design" at the hearing being held for them to present one.

If the DI had properly done their prerequisite homework by first checking for testable sources of "intelligent causation" they would have at least been as far I was in that area at the time, instead of avoiding ever going there. Part of the reason for that not being noticeable to everyone was all the confusion at the time over what a hypothesis and theory is and isn't. Thanks to PBS Dinosaur Train and PBS linked common sense a repeat of that mess was further made harder to make a case for. Being able to be fair to all sides while having science fun people enjoy is for credibility sake required.

--------------
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: 1205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2018,08:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2018,02:45)
Giving Kansas Public School officials and taxpaying public the responsibility of determining the scientific merit of "theory of intelligent design" created an official matter where the Jack Krebs led side of the issue through boycott and (lucky accident) DI supplied link to the KCFS forum left unresolved at that point and to from there online continue until one is finally achieved.

Thinking can be hard work, but you have to do it if you want to write clearly.    Bad thinking results in bad writing.  Of course, you also must care whether what you write can be understood or not.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1634
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2018,09:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2018,02:45)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 25 2018,16:09)
   
Quote
Discovery Institute network may be next. For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam the theory is now caught up in, which makes such a thing impossible to be fully taken seriously, by those who not suffer from a fear filled addiction that does not respond to reason.


"Intelligent design" comes from the Discovery Institute.  You have yet to demonstrate that there is any value to be had in reviving its corpse.


The earlier mentioned Alex Jones is another profiting from the same "The theory of evolution is a fraud" hoax. What looks to you like a "corpse" is not yet dead. Even where it had begun to decompose the premise for an otherwise viable theory is not something that can be scooped up with a backhoe then buried in a hole.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 25 2018,16:09)
Since it was fatally flawed in the original conception, resurrecting a new version with the old name seems profitless.  You might as well try to resurrect Nazi ideology, except a new compassionate and politically correct version, as opposed to the mistaken version unfortunately pushed by the regrettable Mr. Hitler.


After having myself read how Nazi ideology presented Medalian genetics and divine creation in German science classes I'm confident that the DI already has all the compassionate looking ingredients properly mixed. They are just having a hard time achieving detonation, which in this case for them has a best case scenario that begins with easily enough brushed off mob riots, looting and mass murders.

It's no longer possible to fully control the communication media of a population, like Mr. Hitler eventually did. There are still problems from individuals and organizations that profit by repeating false information, in turn forming mobs who feel morally justified in brutal actions now including against parents who just lost their kids in a school massacre. In the Alex Jones case are the same misrepresentations of science that the Discovery Institute has been using, they are enabling each other.

This is maybe a good time to mention a recent topic that the Numenta forum pertaining to definitions for intelligence, where in my first reply I presented the scientific method pdf and avoided going into detail that gets me caught up in the ID controversy. Soon after it was indicated the definition must begin at the chemistry level. At that point I was forced to write a second reply containing more detail than I wanted to get into. But this time I did not link to the TheoryOfID.pdf or its blog, I instead right there presented all the needed information then had to link to the KCFS forum for the Christmas present topic crediting Kathy Martin too for an earlier related educational spin-off for science teachers from the Kansas Public School public hearing mayhem. The two replies are:

discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/4

discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/7

This example best shows what transferring scientific theory looks like. I had to send Kathy a link. It's for me still as in the public hearing days where she represents those she was elected to serve, not the Discovery Institute who like myself is one source of input but has no final say in anything. Spinoffs from the "fair hearing" event held on behalf of taxpayers of Kansas are a credit to the people who live there, not institute from Seattle.

It's no surprise that this complicated of an issue is still not yet fully resolved. But I expect the fate of Alex Jones and in turn his enablers will help show why the DI never presented a scientific theory at a public hearing where one was expected, then pointed fingers at Atheists as though they were suppressing their said to be scientific theory instead of using the time to at least as well as I did explain how an "intelligent cause" works in biology so that it can be taught in biology class.

Giving Kansas Public School officials and taxpaying public the responsibility of determining the scientific merit of "theory of intelligent design" created an official matter where the Jack Krebs led side of the issue through boycott and (lucky accident) DI supplied link to the KCFS forum left unresolved at that point and to from there online continue until one is finally achieved. It may not much matter to you but for those who were there including myself via internet it's something that very much matters, relating to how their statewide education system is by the rest of the world viewed.

What I can show is progress towards a scientifically useful model/theory that in turn helps explain why the premise that "got their foot in the door" was not the root cause of the trouble, it was from the DI never having presented a scientific "theory of intelligent design" at the hearing being held for them to present one.

If the DI had properly done their prerequisite homework by first checking for testable sources of "intelligent causation" they would have at least been as far I was in that area at the time, instead of avoiding ever going there. Part of the reason for that not being noticeable to everyone was all the confusion at the time over what a hypothesis and theory is and isn't. Thanks to PBS Dinosaur Train and PBS linked common sense a repeat of that mess was further made harder to make a case for. Being able to be fair to all sides while having science fun people enjoy is for credibility sake required.

Quote
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.  At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,05:15   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 27 2018,08:27)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2018,02:45)
Giving Kansas Public School officials and taxpaying public the responsibility of determining the scientific merit of "theory of intelligent design" created an official matter where the Jack Krebs led side of the issue through boycott and (lucky accident) DI supplied link to the KCFS forum left unresolved at that point and to from there online continue until one is finally achieved.

Thinking can be hard work, but you have to do it if you want to write clearly.    Bad thinking results in bad writing.  Of course, you also must care whether what you write can be understood or not.

I had a feeling that part might be difficult for others to decipher. By that time it was early morning and I was too exhausted from having been up all night writing. It was though posted just in time to avoid falling asleep at the keyboard. Here's a more properly detailed version of the same thing, which of course made it an even longer read but since you kinda asked for it the replacement text is bolded in the following resend of the whole message:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After having myself read how Nazi ideology presented Mendelian trait genetics and divine creation together in German science classes I'm confident that the DI already has all the compassionate looking ingredients properly mixed. They are just having a hard time achieving detonation, which in this case for them has a best case scenario that begins with easily enough brushed off mob riots, looting and mass murders.

It's no longer possible to fully control the communication media of a population, like Mr. Hitler eventually did. There are still problems from individuals and organizations that profit by repeating false information, in turn forming mobs who feel morally justified in brutal actions now including against parents who lost their kids in a school massacre. In the Alex Jones case are the same misrepresentations of science that the Discovery Institute has been using, they enable each other.

This is maybe a good time to mention a recent topic that the Numenta forum pertaining to definitions for intelligence, where in my first reply I presented the scientific method pdf and avoided going into detail that gets me caught up in the ID controversy. Soon after it was indicated the definition must begin at the chemistry level. At that point I was forced to write a second reply containing more detail than I wanted to get into. But this time I did not link to the TheoryOfID.pdf or its blog, I instead right there presented all the needed information then had to link to the KCFS forum for the Christmas present topic crediting Kathy Martin too for an earlier related educational spin-off for science teachers from the Kansas Public School public hearing mayhem. The two replies are:

discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/4

discourse.numenta.org/t/intelligence-and-transfer-learning/3894/7

This example best shows what transferring scientific theory looks like. I had to send Kathy a link. It's for me still as in the public hearing days where she represents those she was elected to serve, not the Discovery Institute who like myself is one source of input but has no final say in anything. Spinoffs from the "fair hearing" event held on behalf of taxpayers of Kansas are a credit to the people who live there, not institute from Seattle.

It's no surprise that this complicated of an issue is still not yet fully resolved. But I expect the fate of Alex Jones and in turn his enablers will help show why the DI never presented a scientific theory at a public hearing where one was expected, then pointed fingers at Atheists as though they were suppressing their said to be scientific theory instead of using the time to at least as well as I did explain how an "intelligent cause" works in biology so that it can be taught in biology class.

By giving Kansas Public School officials and (through public hearing) citizens of that state the responsibility of judging the scientific merit of their "theory of intelligent design" the Discovery Institute had made their "theory" a very official state legal matter governed by state law, professional ethics, etc.. Jack Krebs led the opposing side, which decided to boycott the hearing but still attended and in other ways informed the public. The opposition did this to help avoid becoming an enabler for diversionary tactics that attack Darwinian theory and the credibility of scientists and educators who question them, instead of presenting a "theory of intelligent design" where in this case a state hearing was held for them to in detail explain to the audience. This left the issue very much unresolved. But by lucky accident: in the process of blasting Kansas Citizens For Science office secretary Liz Craig for her having called them bible thumpers the Discovery Institute included in official evidence a link to the online KCFS forum, where from there discussion could continue for however long it may take for a (all in Kansas are happy, fate of the DI irrelevant) resolution of the issue.

Not only was the example ID theory (I still carry on with today) born from the challenge this influences how the Kansas Public Schools are viewed by the rest of the world. I personally experienced being part of a well connected education system, where in that time of crisis the greatest scientists in the world were standing by at the KCFS forum and/or email in case a teacher or other resident of the state needed their help.

Whether the public hearing was a good or bad thing always depended on what was later learned, all can agree on. It's vital for me to stay in spirit with the intent of state law for holding one. Not being afraid to go wherever the over and over repeated premise for a theory leads had in time made it clear that the DI only presented a premise. That reason alone is enough to explain why no scientific theory was ever presented at the hearing. There is then no need to blame anyone for having been lured by the premise too, saw no harm in at least trying to develop such a thing. Having something to show that shows-up even the Discovery Institute is something Kansas residents and educators can be proud of having helped develop, to further help keep the state ahead of others and looking good in regards to understanding of once overwhelmingly complex ID related issues, the DI had brought to Kansas to have fairly judged.

Giving the theory of intelligent design a totally "fair hearing" may not much matter to you, but to those who were there and including (via internet) myself nothing else matters.

What I can show is progress towards a scientifically useful model/theory that helps explain why the premise that "got their foot in the door" was not the root cause of the trouble, it was from the DI never having presented a scientific "theory of intelligent design" at the hearing being held for them to present one. It's no wonder there was only chaos.

If the DI had properly done their prerequisite homework by first checking for testable sources of "intelligent causation" then they would have at least been as far I was in that area at the time, instead of avoiding ever going there. Part of the reason for that problem not being noticeable to everyone was all the confusion at the time over what a hypothesis and theory is and isn't. Thanks to PBS Dinosaur Train and PBS linked common sense a repeat of that mess was further made harder to make a case for. Being able to be fair to all sides while having science fun is for credibility sake required.

--------------
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: 515
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,09:45   

From Gaulin on Numenta;

   
Quote
(1) Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).


Gaulin, how many times must it be pointed out THIS IS UTTER BOLLOCKS

Molecules DO NOT "self-assemble". Chemical reactions are dependent on the conditions of the reaction. Any change in the parameters i.e. Ph, temperature, pressure and catalyst all change the reaction and give different results. The molecules react, they do not learn or exhibit "intelligence".

Chemicals react due to the laws of physics and chemistry NOT because they have learnt to react in that way. There is no intelligence in RNA or DNA.

If there was, these two polymer chains would produce no errors, they would produce identical chains in each and every reaction. There are plenty of errors in their transcription. You, Gaulin, have at least 100 mutations in your DNA that were not inherited from your parents. That is not intelligence at work.

Unless and until you start to learn about chemistry beyond 8th grade (Dinosaur Train) mini experiments and then take further study in biochemistry you are a waste of space, time and oxygen. You are unable to learn, will not accept correction and have no idea about science except at the most basic level.

One wonders whether you actually completed grade school.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1823
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,17:04   

Quote
Part of the reason for that problem not being noticeable to everyone was all the confusion at the time over what a hypothesis and theory is and isn't. Thanks to PBS Dinosaur Train and PBS linked common sense a repeat of that mess was further made harder to make a case for.


Um, no.  The Dinosaur Train definition of hypothesis is passable for three-year-olds, but it has significant shortcomings for older students and for actual scientists, as we have said before.  The main confusion about what constitutes a theory is strictly your own, and you still haven't sorted yourself out.  The DI has been in the business of lying about science in order to get religion in by the back door, so why you think there is value to be found in their ideas is a mystery.   And for crying out loud, learn to write intelligibly.

The fact that you think
Quote
But by lucky accident: in the process of blasting Kansas Citizens For Science office secretary Liz Craig for her having called them bible thumpers the Discovery Institute included in official evidence a link to the online KCFS forum, where from there discussion could continue for however long it may take for a (all in Kansas are happy, fate of the DI irrelevant) resolution of the issue.
is an improvement is hilarious.  

The fact that you think the following statement did not need major revision is more of a tragedy.  Or possibly it's the other way around - it's hard to tell.
Quote
 It's for me still as in the public hearing days where she represents those she was elected to serve, not the Discovery Institute who like myself is one source of input but has no final say in anything. Spinoffs from the "fair hearing" event held on behalf of taxpayers of Kansas are a credit to the people who live there, not institute from Seattle.  It's no surprise that this complicated of an issue is still not yet fully resolved. But I expect the fate of Alex Jones and in turn his enablers will help show why the DI never presented a scientific theory at a public hearing where one was expected, then pointed fingers at Atheists as though they were suppressing their said to be scientific theory instead of using the time to at least as well as I did explain how an "intelligent cause" works in biology so that it can be taught in biology class.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,18:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 28 2018,17:04)
The Dinosaur Train definition of hypothesis is passable for three-year-olds, but it has significant shortcomings for older students and for actual scientists, as we have said before.

You never presented evidence that a hypothesis needs to be more than "An idea you can test."

And you never presented evidence that a theory needs to be more than a testable explanation for how something works.

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,18:02   

In honor of heros who have sacrificed, for us, is this new information to help explain how our heros work:

Psychopathy to Altruism: Neurobiology of the Selfish–Selfless Spectrum

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5917043/



Dopamine reward system of the brain. (A) Dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) directly innervate the nucleus accumbens (NAc), prefrontal cortex (PFC), amygdala (Amy), and hippocampus (Hip) (de la Mora et al., 2010; Kahn and Shohamy, 2013; Shnitko and Robinson, 2014). As in most neural networks, connectivity between the nuclei goes both ways. Dopamine release from the VTA promotes feelings of satisfaction, pleasure and euphoria, rewarding and motivating behavior. Dopamine release from the substantia nigra in the striatum modulates motor functions. (B) While the neurocircuitry modulating the VTA and NAc is complex, major projections from the PFC, Amy and Hip to the VTA and NAc have been identified (Sesack and Grace, 2010). This is consistent with known modulation of reward system dopaminergic activity being influenced by goal-directed behavior (PFC), emotions and feelings (Amy) and experience/memories (Hip) (Sesack and Grace, 2010). Illustrated by Matt Hazard.

--------------
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: 1823
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,22:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2018,18:00)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 28 2018,17:04)
The Dinosaur Train definition of hypothesis is passable for three-year-olds, but it has significant shortcomings for older students and for actual scientists, as we have said before.

You never presented evidence that a hypothesis needs to be more than "An idea you can test."

Umm, no.

First, there is the large problem that your stuff fails according to your own standards, as nothing in your pile of rubbish is testable - you still haven't come up with any valid and logically entailed predictions and any ways to test them.

Second, we went over all this back in Nov. 2014.  It is true that an hypothesis can be no more than a statement of a fact that is proposed for the purpose of verification or disproof.  It is also true that the Dinosaur Train proposal ("you guys are faster because your legs are longer") is indeed an hypothesis. However, those are not the most useful and fruitful forms of hypotheses in science.  With some exceptions to be discussed below (primarily in statistics, philosophy, and some areas of theoretical physics) in most of science our hypotheses are our potential explanations for our observations (theories are also proposed explanations, but theories have some degree of support already, while hypotheses are strictly hypotheticals devised for testing and in most cases disproof), and they are accompanied by alternative explanations and proposals for ways to test them.  So to be really useful in science, hypotheses generally need to be testable potential explanations, and benefit from being stated in multiple mutually exclusive sets.   Sean Carroll describes it very neatly as (paraphrased), ‘Think of every possible way the world could be - those are your hypotheses. Either before or after, look at how the world actually is - that’s your evidence, your data.  Where possible, choose the hypothesis that provides the best fit to the data.’  This requires that the hypotheses be cleanly and clearly stated, using explicit and justified definitions, none of which is true for your stuff.  Phil Plait says, “Watch the universe, see how it behaves, make guesses about why it’s doing what it’s doing, and then try to think of ways to support or disprove those ideas” - trying to figure out the ways we might be wrong is one of the best ways to improve, and you aren't doing that.  The best and most explicit statement about this process is Strong Inference, as formalized by J.R. Platt in 1964.  Platt claimed that the best route for fast scientific progress (for exploring the unknown) comprises four steps:
  A) Formulate alternative, mutually exclusive, potentially falsifiable hypotheses
  B) Plan observations or experiments whose outcomes will exclude one or more of the hypotheses
  C) Make the observations or do the experiments as cleanly as possible
  D) Repeat the procedure with new hypotheses.

With regards to philosophy and statistics and other versions of hypotheses, let me recopy some of what I said back in 2014:

 
Quote
There is a longstanding use in logic where an hypothesis is the antecedent of a proposition: it's A in "If A, then B".  Obviously, this has analogies to the use of the term in science, where we make predictions from our hypotheses and then test the predictions.  

There is a very different usage in statistics, which we also use in science:  Null hypothesis: A is not different from B, at some level of significance; Alternate hypothesis: A is different from B at that level of significance.  In this sense, we have stated two mutually exclusive statements of possibility, and we test them against each other.  We follow this model this a lot in science when we build mutually exclusive working hypotheses, and, of course, when we do statistics.

Beyond this, in science, hypotheses (other than statistical ones) usually but not always contain significant elements of explanation, rather than just being declaratory statements of alternative realities that are about to be tested.  Also, to be really useful an hypothesis has to be testable.  

Your Dinosaur Train definition (an hypothesis is a testable idea) is not bad, and it works fine for kids, but scientific practice is a little more complicated.

For all your trumpeting of hypotheses being testable ideas, how come you haven't generated testable ideas and/or tests for the ideas that you have?  

You are welcome to ignore our critiques, but you are going to be irrelevant until you resolve the problems that we have been pointing out.


Also,
 
Quote
Yes, the Dinosaur Train simplification is reasonable for little kids, and yes, in science, hypotheses tend to be useful to the extent that they are testable.  However, that is not the beginning and end of what an hypothesis is, as they encompass more than just testability.  In particular, the philosophy version of hypothesis need not be testable (it can be a hypothetical, a presumption premised for the sake of argument), and quite often in science people are inspired by hypotheses that are not testable or for which they have not yet thought up a test.  However, hypotheses that are most useful in science tend to contain (or have implications for) significant explanations.  Your stuff by your standards does not even amount to an hypothesis (because by and large it is not testable), whereas by my standards it doesn't amount to a useful hypothesis (plus it is not stated in a form that lends itself to being a decent hypothesis).

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1823
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,22:35   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2018,18:00)
And you never presented evidence that a theory needs to be more than a testable explanation for how something works.

Also BS on your part.

Unless you elaborate it significantly, a mere "testable explanation for how something works" is at heart an hypothesis, as described above.

A theory is 1) generally a broad and general proposed explanation or set of explanations that 2) has or have garnered enough supporting evidence to become either a) widely accepted, or b) at least widely considered to be worthy of further investigation.  In other words, it needs, 3), to have a reasonable likelihood of being correct.  Your pile of verbiage fails on all three counts, with the most interesting failure being at the first level, since your definitions and your writing are so god-awful that it is unclear what you are proposing and whether it explains anything.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2790
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,22:54   

People have been telling him this since the dawn of his idea.

Gary Gaulin is pathologically incapable of recognizing and learning from his mistakes.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2018,23:27   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 28 2018,22:35)
Unless you elaborate that significantly, "a testable explanation for how something works" is at heart an hypothesis, as described above.

The hypothesis is the only one of the two that does not require explaining how something works. It seems that which one it is should be obvious by looking at what was written to see whether it tests an idea like "what goes up must come down" or explains how something like rocket propulsion or gravity works.

I could possibly add something like I just said above to where they are introduced in the pdf for the scientific method, but adding to the definitions themselves is not necessary.

--------------
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: 1823
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,01:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2018,23:27)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 28 2018,22:35)
Unless you elaborate that significantly, "a testable explanation for how something works" is at heart an hypothesis, as described above.

The hypothesis is the only one of the two that does not require explaining how something works. It seems that which one it is should be obvious by looking at what was written to see whether it tests an idea like "what goes up must come down" or explains how something like rocket propulsion or gravity works.

I could possibly add something like I just said above to where they are introduced in the pdf for the scientific method, but adding to the definitions themselves is not necessary.

I acknowledge that an hypothesis is not required to contain an explanation, and also that the boundary between hypothesis and theory is a gray area.  Nonetheless, hypotheses are not hugely useful in advancing science unless they do contain elements of potential explanations.  Yes, it is nice to confirm or prove details and those are indeed fundamental in science, but major advances are made mostly by proposing and testing potential explanations, and that is the job of hypotheses, not theories.  The distinction between an hypothesis and a theory IS NOT that a theory includes a potential explanation whereas an hypothesis doesn't: if you go down that route, you will merely be demonstrating your ignorance of science that much more loudly.  The job of a theory is to synthesize accepted explanations into a coherent framework, and thereby to provide the conceptual basis for research programs and education in science, so graduation from an hypothesis to a theory only happens after a certain amount of acceptance, typically after considerable confirming evidence has been found.  The image of a mad scientist in a basement (or you) declaiming "I have a theory" could barely be more wrong about the nature of theories.

The problem in your work is not a matter of refining a few words about the definition of hypotheses.  It is rather that your whole conceptual scheme is likely to be rotten to the core - I refer you back to Chemicat's comment earlier, and to the many mistakes in what you have said about evolutionary biology.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,01:21   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 27 2018,09:14)
 
Quote
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.  At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Your quote from an Adam Sandler movie can be interpreted in a number of ways, including Texas Teach is jealous of teachers in Kansas.

But anyway.. On a whim I looked up the molecular structure of dopamine and noticed something hexagonally marvelous that interestingly resonates, I recalled from having studied benzene.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine

More information:

Aromatics and Cyclic Compounds - Crash Course Chemistry #42

Hopefully the video will help pacify the crotchety chemist, who I am (not so) sure can teach us much more about how this resonant system works.

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 515
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,02:03   

Quote
Hopefully the video will help pacify the crotchety chemist, who I am (not so) sure can teach us much more about how this resonant system works.


Unless and until you either;

1) Provide testable empirical evidence for your "molecular intelligence" rubbish or;

2) Admit you are wrong and withdraw your bald assertion there is no point in discussing this further.

I suppose that you missed this bit;

"Like any organic compound, aromatics can undergo tons of reactions that produce all sorts of molecules".

All you have to do is isolate the reaction that makes a molecule 'intelligent'.

Go to it, Gaulin, a Nobel and fame and money waits for you!

ps I don't think resonance means what you think it means.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5342
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,02:03   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,01:02)
Yes, it is nice to confirm or prove details and those are indeed fundamental in science, but major advances are made mostly by proposing and testing potential explanations, and that is the job of hypotheses, not theories.


You are then testing theories. And theories are still as they say "tentative" so it's not like there was never a provision for testing multiple potential explanations with them. It's far simpler and makes much more sense for you to use theories as they were already meant to be used.  

Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,01:02)
The distinction between an hypothesis and a theory IS NOT that a theory includes a potential explanation whereas an hypothesis doesn't: if you go down that route, you will merely be demonstrating your ignorance of science that much more loudly.  The job of a theory is to synthesize accepted explanations into a coherent framework, and thereby to provide the conceptual basis for research programs and education in science, so graduation from an hypothesis to a theory only happens after a certain amount of acceptance, typically after considerable confirming evidence has been found.  The image of a mad scientist in a basement (or you) declaiming "I have a theory" could barely be more wrong about the nature of theories.


I saw way too much time wasted trying to argue that the DI does not have a theory by using a fuzzy criteria like "widely accepted". The same can be argued to apply to what the DI considers to be a theory they will claim is "widely accepted" too even though how the said "intelligent cause" works is never explained, a hypothesis with the name of a theory in it also called a premise.

Treating the DI as fairly as they asked for makes the real source of their problem much easily visible. Having for so long missed this rather vital detail is a good example of what happens when judging is based upon "acceptance" and such.

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

   
  18517 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (618) < ... 609 610 611 612 613 [614] 615 616 617 618 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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