RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (619) < ... 611 612 613 614 615 [616] 617 618 619 >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2018,05:04   

Here you go, Gaulin;

Clarity

No need for thanks. Just take it to heart.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 60
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2018,06:41   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 30 2018,15:59)
Quote (Henry J @ May 30 2018,15:12)
Quote (ChemiCat @ May 30 2018,12:53)
 
Quote
I am a resident of Massachusetts.


What crime has Massachusetts commited to deserve that?

Their capitol had a tea party.

And really, it was a bad idea to come down from the trees in the first place.

Love the Hitchhiker's reference!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5106
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2018,08:00   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ June 01 2018,05:41)
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 30 2018,15:59)
Quote (Henry J @ May 30 2018,15:12)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ May 30 2018,12:53)
 
Quote
I am a resident of Massachusetts.


What crime has Massachusetts commited to deserve that?

Their capitol had a tea party.

And really, it was a bad idea to come down from the trees in the first place.

Love the Hitchhiker's reference!

Forty two.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2018,23:36   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 29 2018,16:12)
NWells just dropped the mic so hard a crack appeared and molten lava bubbled out.

I predict that Gary will claim that the phrase used in a cartoon for preschoolers supersedes all the people who actually know what they are talking about.  I am now also imagining him telling his doctor she is wrong based on what he learned on Doc McStuffins.

I could not help but entertain the remote possibility of there being some jealously towards Kansas involved in your most recent weird behavior.

Although I'm not an authority on Doc McStuffins the concept of a hospital for toys certainly correlates with the awesome toys that some older scientists get to play with. See first sentence of my reply to the Panda's Thumb article - Who gets to define "theory"?

pandasthumb.org/archives/2018/05/define-theory.html#comment-3927280504

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2018,08:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2018,23:36)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 29 2018,16:12)
NWells just dropped the mic so hard a crack appeared and molten lava bubbled out.

I predict that Gary will claim that the phrase used in a cartoon for preschoolers supersedes all the people who actually know what they are talking about.  I am now also imagining him telling his doctor she is wrong based on what he learned on Doc McStuffins.

I could not help but entertain the remote possibility of there being some jealously towards Kansas involved in your most recent weird behavior.

Although I'm not an authority on Doc McStuffins the concept of a hospital for toys certainly correlates with the awesome toys that some older scientists get to play with. See first sentence of my reply to the Panda's Thumb article - Who gets to define "theory"?

pandasthumb.org/archives/2018/05/define-theory.html#comment-3927280504

Why would anyone be jealous of Kansas?  It's been turned into a disaster by right-wing nutjob politicians.

Thanks for pointing out the Panda's Thumb thread.  However, you failed to notice that EVERYBODY there, even Byers!!!!!!! (to a tiny degree but made problematic by his other errors), is more correct about the nature of a theory than you.  As Matt Young and DS said, what you call a theory there is an hypothesis.  

Your not-a-theory here is not even a well-stated hypothesis, as it comes without ways to test it and is not stated in a form that can be understood sufficiently clearly to be understood and tested.

 
Quote
[From Gary at Panda's Thumb] All the evidence I now have indicates you're attempting to explain the thought process involved, how your own mind/brain works. It's then no surprise that the "scientific method" turned out to be guess driven "trial and error learning" we were born with.

That's partly wrong and partly right.  We are born with trial and error learning, and the scientific method indeed uses systematic trial and error.  However, we are also born to take deductive shortcuts, for instance to flinch at movements in the shadows, to give credence to coincidences, to intuit probability, and to fall in love with our own ideas, all of which can save us from a tiger but can easily pull us to an incorrect conclusion.  Those directions lead us to superstition and denying evidence when it conflicts with our beliefs.  As much as scientific methods involve trial and error, they are even more about avoiding those problem areas ("making science scientist-proof") by insisting on testing all possible alternatives, not jumping to intuitive conclusions, backing up everything with supporting evidence, using statistics, and so on, all of which you fail at because you are so in love with your ideas that you don't think they need to be supported by evidence because they are to you (alone) self-evident.  Your infatuation  also blinds to the fact that your writing is so bad and unclear that no one else can understand it clearly enough to be absolutely sure of what you are saying in many critical parts - hence all our questions early in the thread back when we thought you might be interested in making your points clearer.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2018,15:39   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,08:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2018,23:36)
     
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 29 2018,16:12)
NWells just dropped the mic so hard a crack appeared and molten lava bubbled out.

I predict that Gary will claim that the phrase used in a cartoon for preschoolers supersedes all the people who actually know what they are talking about.  I am now also imagining him telling his doctor she is wrong based on what he learned on Doc McStuffins.

I could not help but entertain the remote possibility of there being some jealously towards Kansas involved in your most recent weird behavior.

Although I'm not an authority on Doc McStuffins the concept of a hospital for toys certainly correlates with the awesome toys that some older scientists get to play with. See first sentence of my reply to the Panda's Thumb article - Who gets to define "theory"?

pandasthumb.org/archives/2018/05/define-theory.html#comment-3927280504

Why would anyone be jealous of Kansas?  It's been turned into a disaster by right-wing nutjob politicians.


It's like the old saying "Necessity is the mother of invention". From this Kansas became an incubator for new ideas. Events like these with a surprise ending can be scientifically exciting. Nothing like it that I know of has ever happened in Texas. It's possible for some to envy that.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,08:46)

Thanks for pointing out the Panda's Thumb thread.  However, you failed to notice that EVERYBODY there, even Byers!!!!!!! (to a tiny degree but made problematic by his other errors), is more correct about the nature of a theory than you.  As Matt Young and DS said, what you call a theory there is an hypothesis.

Your not-a-theory here is not even a well-stated hypothesis, as it comes without ways to test it and is not stated in a form that can be understood sufficiently clearly to be understood and tested.


The "well-stated hypothesis" (idea you can test) relevant to the ID controversy is in my signature line. But you have your own reasons for being convinced that it's impossible for your personal beliefs about it to contain errors, the trial of something else that might explain how the said odds defying "intelligent cause" works is believed to be scientifically evil. Trial and error learning is again halted. So here we are arguing over semantics of words again.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,08:46)
 
Quote
[From Gary at Panda's Thumb] All the evidence I now have indicates you're attempting to explain the thought process involved, how your own mind/brain works. It's then no surprise that the "scientific method" turned out to be guess driven "trial and error learning" we were born with.

That's partly wrong and partly right.  We are born with trial and error learning, and the scientific method indeed uses systematic trial and error.  However, we are also born to take deductive shortcuts, for instance to flinch at movements in the shadows, to give credence to coincidences, to intuit probability, and to fall in love with our own ideas, all of which can save us from a tiger but can easily pull us to an incorrect conclusion.  Those directions lead us to superstition and denying evidence when it conflicts with our beliefs.  As much as scientific methods involve trial and error, they are even more about avoiding those problem areas ("making science scientist-proof") by insisting on testing all possible alternatives, not jumping to intuitive conclusions, backing up everything with supporting evidence, using statistics, and so on, all of which you fail at because you are so in love with your ideas that you don't think they need to be supported by evidence because they are to you (alone) self-evident.  Your infatuation  also blinds to the fact that your writing is so bad and unclear that no one else can understand it clearly enough to be absolutely sure of what you are saying in many critical parts - hence all our questions early in the thread back when we thought you might be interested in making your points clearer.


There is here the second question of: Who gets to define "intelligence" and "intelligent cause"? This is of course what cognitive science exists to explain. In my example the trial and error learning process instead thrives. There is science fun for all aboard, no need for fighting.

This is an issue that starts outside of the evolutionary sciences, being brought in by first undermining cognitive science related learning. Allowing the first step to occur has a domino effect into many areas of learning, including history.

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 02 2018,20:33   

[quote=GaryGaulin,June 02 2018,15:39][/quote]
   
Quote
It's like the old saying "Necessity is the mother of invention". From this Kansas became an incubator for new ideas. Events like these with a surprise ending can be scientifically exciting. Nothing like it that I know of has ever happened in Texas. It's possible for some to envy that.

Well, if you want to envy Kansas, go ahead and do it.  I suspect you'll be in a lonely fan club, but it's your life.

   
Quote
The "well-stated hypothesis" (idea you can test) relevant to the ID controversy is in my signature line. But you have your own reasons for being convinced that it's impossible for your personal beliefs about it to contain errors, the trial of something else that might explain how the said odds defying "intelligent cause" works is believed to be scientifically evil. Trial and error learning is again halted. So here we are arguing over semantics of words again.


Having a good statement in your signature line means nothing if you don't put the sentiments into action.  You have not proposed anything that people can evaluate or test, because too much of it is too poorly written, and because what we can figure out about it is wrong, illogical, unsupported, self-contradictory, and so on.

   
Quote
There is here the second question of: Who gets to define "intelligence" and "intelligent cause"? This is of course what cognitive science exists to explain. In my example the trial and error learning process instead thrives. There is science fun for all aboard, no need for fighting.

This is an issue that starts outside of the evolutionary sciences, being brought in by first undermining cognitive science related learning. Allowing the first step to occur has a domino effect into many areas of learning, including history.

Asked and answered.  For the purpose of investigating an hypothesis, you can define terms however you wish.  However, if you chose not to go with standard definitions:

a) your definitions have to be clearly stated (some of your needed definitions are not stated at all, which is why people kept asking you what you meant by various terms (which you still haven't answered), and some of your definitions are murky, ambiguous, and/or self-contradictory,

b) it helps tremendously if you justify the need for having redefinitions and using nonstandard terminology (and you haven't done that),

and c) you can't conflate your new usage with the old usage, which you do all too often.

While your stuff is tragically hilarious and has the error part of trial and error down pat, you are not advancing science.

   
Quote
But you have your own reasons for being convinced that it's impossible for your personal beliefs about it to contain errors, the trial of something else that might explain how the said odds defying "intelligent cause" works is believed to be scientifically evil.

You still misunderstand my objections.  Unlike you I can and do admit to errors and I change my assumptions and conclusions as a result.  If you want to come up with an explanation for intelligence that lies outside evolutionary theory that's fine by me.  My position about the origin of intelligence (like the origin of life) is "we know very little about it".  However, when you are slamming natural selection and evolutionary biology, making claims that are clearly wrong, based on your misunderstandings of the field, and talking crap about the Cambrian explosion, I object to that. When your model models a hippocampus in creature that doesn't have one, I object. When you claim to have a scientific  theory that has lots of obvious errors, and is not a scientific theory, and is too poorly written to be clearly understood, and isn't testable, and when you what you present has nothing to do with most of the claims you are making, then I object to that too.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1694
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2018,00:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2018,23:36)
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 29 2018,16:12)
NWells just dropped the mic so hard a crack appeared and molten lava bubbled out.

I predict that Gary will claim that the phrase used in a cartoon for preschoolers supersedes all the people who actually know what they are talking about.  I am now also imagining him telling his doctor she is wrong based on what he learned on Doc McStuffins.

I could not help but entertain the remote possibility of there being some jealously towards Kansas involved in your most recent weird behavior.

Although I'm not an authority on Doc McStuffins the concept of a hospital for toys certainly correlates with the awesome toys that some older scientists get to play with. See first sentence of my reply to the Panda's Thumb article - Who gets to define "theory"?

pandasthumb.org/archives/2018/05/define-theory.html#comment-3927280504

1). I haven’t mentioned Kansas in recent memory.  I’ve lost track of where the pendulum of sanity vs insanity is with regards to the Kansas science standards, but given the recent attempts to run a state on no tax revenue, I’m guessing the education system isn’t one of the best.

2). Nothing especially unique happened during the period you’re so obsessed with.  Creationist meddling is all too common in states full of religious zealots.  Dover was far more significant nationally and historically, and the shenanigans of the Texas State Board of Education have been more important to my day to day teaching.

3).  No, a cartoon about toys and scientific equipment have almost nothing to do with each other.  Your inability to grasp or use metaphors is astounding.

4). Your comments on the PT thread demonstrate that you don’t understand science in the least.  Thinking that we should use the same word for both what babies and scientists do shows that you don’t even grasp the purpose of language, much less science.

5). Thinking that your education via pre-school cartoon puts you on equal footing with people who have spent most of their lives studying and practicing science is comic arrogance rarely seen in history.

--------------
"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: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2018,13:58   

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 03 2018,00:51)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2018,23:36)
         
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 29 2018,16:12)
NWells just dropped the mic so hard a crack appeared and molten lava bubbled out.

I predict that Gary will claim that the phrase used in a cartoon for preschoolers supersedes all the people who actually know what they are talking about.  I am now also imagining him telling his doctor she is wrong based on what he learned on Doc McStuffins.

I could not help but entertain the remote possibility of there being some jealously towards Kansas involved in your most recent weird behavior.

Although I'm not an authority on Doc McStuffins the concept of a hospital for toys certainly correlates with the awesome toys that some older scientists get to play with. See first sentence of my reply to the Panda's Thumb article - Who gets to define "theory"?

pandasthumb.org/archives/2018/05/define-theory.html#comment-3927280504

1). I haven’t mentioned Kansas in recent memory.  I’ve lost track of where the pendulum of sanity vs insanity is with regards to the Kansas science standards, but given the recent attempts to run a state on no tax revenue, I’m guessing the education system isn’t one of the best.


The current national report card shows Kansas and Texas to both have an average score of 241, the national average is 239. The state I live in Massachusetts is at the top of the list with 249. Other scores I have seen that look at only science reflect the same trend:

www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=&sfj=NP&st=MN&year=2017R3

This report does indicate the Donald Trump echoed tax cuts negatively impacted their schools:

The Tax Experiment That Failed
www.theatlantic.com/video/index/558143/kansas-tax-cuts/

The same happening at the federal level could be doubly devastating. Kansas is though none the less still a state worth watching, yes?

     
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 03 2018,00:51)

2). Nothing especially unique happened during the period you’re so obsessed with.  Creationist meddling is all too common in states full of religious zealots.  Dover was far more significant nationally and historically, and the shenanigans of the Texas State Board of Education have been more important to my day to day teaching.


If nothing especially unique happened during the period then all of Kansas would have gone the way of Dover. In both situations there was an overwhelming amount of opposition against the Discovery Institute that wanted to make an expensive to the taxpayer court case out of it so that their lawyer(s) can put Charles Darwin on trial, as they tried to do during the Dover trial that finally gave them the chance, but the judge rightly expected them to stop attacking another theory and explain how the "mechanism" of their "theory of intelligent design" works. I expect the same.

What matters is that the DI did not get what they really wanted from Kansas. That's more or less what Jack Krebs and others were hoping for. Dover, Pennsylvania later became as you said "far more significant nationally and historically".

     
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 03 2018,00:51)

3).  No, a cartoon about toys and scientific equipment have almost nothing to do with each other.  Your inability to grasp or use metaphors is astounding.


Well then here's one my toys! This HP5988A research grade Mass Spectrometer would have otherwise been sent to a scrap yard has dual water cooled diffusion pumps to create the vacuum conditions of outer space, and just getting them going again without a "boil up" that trashes the internal system was more of an adrenaline rush than even my Mr Machine earlier was. Due to the computer part of the system being obsolete I had to first add an interface and write my own software that directly controls the electronics. The stainless steel vacuum chamber is so shiny light reflected in a way that made it look it had a burnout or something, when actually no high heat is involved and vacuum like this makes things implode not explode and is at least as safe as a typical household power tool.
 


Now beat that!

     
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 03 2018,00:51)

4). Your comments on the PT thread demonstrate that you don’t understand science in the least.  Thinking that we should use the same word for both what babies and scientists do shows that you don’t even grasp the purpose of language, much less science.


One of the most annoying problems in "science" are those who dwell over semantics of words, yet have never even on their own accelerated then smashed ions into a electron multiplier target while drawing out the spectra of molecules and their fragments after having been controllably blasted apart by an electron beam inside the ion source.

When it comes to writing a scientific theory: you can't even get started. There can be nothing more scientifically boring than that. Especially since in this case that's how to as they say "beat them at their own game" just by explaining how basic physics, chemistry and biology work in context of the most basic cognitive science models. Besides, the DI introduced ID as a big-tent where all are welcome to help write theory. Therefore we were already kinda invited to get in a ring and we don't even have to leave home to join the circus. With the way the DI changes over time in response to the mishaps in other rings it's much like a game there too. Instead of our being powerless spectators we become a side attraction that may never get their spotlight, but the others in the game did not even get beyond the premise that really only makes sense in the light of cognitive science. Safety nets made out philosophy do not work in a "scientific arena". I can't understand why someone like you would not want the theory/show to go on. Science thrives on competitive journeys of discovery. Regardless of this much to you like trying to beat adults acting like babies by joining them you need to do something other than play their game by not.

     
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 03 2018,00:51)

5). Thinking that your education via pre-school cartoon puts you on equal footing with people who have spent most of their lives studying and practicing science is comic arrogance rarely seen in history.


Yammering on about how the Dinosaur Train definition for a hypothesis is not good enough for you may make you look childish to even the children.

I'm very certain that inside a real world lab full of toys I have already played with: my footing would still be much better than yours.

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2018,17:08   

We may need to WATCH Kansas, in order to avoid its errors, but that's not the same as envying it.

Quote
but the judge rightly expected them to stop attacking another theory and explain how the "mechanism" of their "theory of intelligent design" works. I expect the same.

The judge did not expect them to stop attacking another theory.  That would be wrong.  He expected them to provide valid justification for their attacks, and they had none, which is not how science works.  He was also correct in expecting them to have a mechanism for their proposed process, and they did not.  I'm glad to hear you have the same expectations.  Here's our objections to your stuff: we similarly expect you to explain your mechanism clearly enough that it can be tested, and we'd like you to demonstrate its validity, because we think you have BS in place of a mechanism.  I know you think you've done that, but all the rest of the world can see is BS and bafflegab.


I've complimented you in the past on your ability to rehab a mass spec.  That's quite a feat, which very few people could do and which could easily qualify you to be a lab tech someplace.    However, that does not qualify you as competent in doing research.  The skills and knowledge base are quite different.  The fact that you can't see the shortcomings in the Dinosaur Train definition illustrates that almost better than anything else could, other than spending years promoting a muddleheaded not-a-theory that no one else cane see any value in.


 
Quote
I can't understand why someone like you would not want the theory/show to go on.
There doesn't seem to be any way it can work, large chunks remain ambiguous to murky, your definitions are a mess, you have no supporting evidence, and so on.  However, if you'd stop abusing biology specifically and science and scientific methodology in general and making claims against them that are patently wrong and are based only in your own misunderstanding, then I'd leave you alone to waste your time however you wish.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2018,19:35   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
The judge did not expect them to stop attacking another theory.  That would be wrong.  He expected them to provide valid justification for their attacks, and they had none, which is not how science works.


If the defendants had "valid justification" then it would not have been an "attack" it would more specifically have been "scientific evidence against". Attacks are uncalled for comments, like many of yours are.

Your diversion to what Judge Jones needed to question after the defendants made it part of their defense does not change his having expected how a "mechanism" works to be explained by their "theory", which was being claimed to prove Darwinian theory wrong and such. If they really had what they claimed they did then there would have been some valid justification for the actions of the defendants. Duh?

 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
My position about the origin of intelligence (like the origin of life) is "we know very little about it".  However, when you are slamming natural selection and evolutionary biology, making claims that are clearly wrong, based on your misunderstandings of the field, I object to that.


Stop acting like I took your rattle away, by simply following what Judge Jones during the Dover trial also said was necessary. I seriously must not care about what the Darwinian theory you would rather discuss says. It makes no predictions in regards to an "intelligent cause" anyway. Keep them separated.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
When your model models a hippocampus in creature that doesn't have one, I object.


You sure do a lot of whining about temporary cosmetic details of a work in progress that now also has echo location, when you should be happy I got that far on no budget at all. From my perspective you're only being like a brat that always has to be the center of attention with something that does not help explain how an "intelligent" cause works. If it is discovered that a circuit is better modeled another way then it's a minor change to update, theory remains standing because of already being the best there is for scientifically explaining how a mechanism of "intelligent cause" 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.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1694
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2018,19:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 03 2018,19:35)
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
The judge did not expect them to stop attacking another theory.  That would be wrong.  He expected them to provide valid justification for their attacks, and they had none, which is not how science works.


If the defendants had "valid justification" then it would not have been an "attack" it would more specifically have been "scientific evidence against". Attacks are uncalled for comments, like many of yours are.

Your diversion to what Judge Jones needed to question after the defendants made it part of their defense does not change his having expected how a "mechanism" works to be explained by their "theory", which was being claimed to prove Darwinian theory wrong and such. If they really had what they claimed they did then there would have been some valid justification for the actions of the defendants. Duh?

 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
My position about the origin of intelligence (like the origin of life) is "we know very little about it".  However, when you are slamming natural selection and evolutionary biology, making claims that are clearly wrong, based on your misunderstandings of the field, I object to that.


Stop acting like I took your rattle away, by simply following what Judge Jones during the Dover trial also said was necessary. I seriously must not care about what the Darwinian theory you would rather discuss says. It makes no predictions in regards to an "intelligent cause" anyway. Keep them separated.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
When your model models a hippocampus in creature that doesn't have one, I object.


You sure do a lot of whining about temporary cosmetic details of a work in progress that now also has echo location, when you should be happy I got that far on no budget at all. From my perspective you're only being like a brat that always has to be the center of attention with something that does not help explain how an "intelligent" cause works. If it is discovered that a circuit is better modeled another way then it's a minor change to update, theory remains standing because of already being the best there is for scientifically explaining how a mechanism of "intelligent cause" works.

1) You’ve yet to demonstrate that intelligent cause is even a thing.  

2) Modeling things that even you admit don’t exist (bugs with hippocampi) is cheating.  It’s fraud.  It is, to put it bluntly, a lie.  

These are not attacks since, by your own comments, they are valid objections.  Feel free to prove them wrong with actual evidence instead of whining and make believe.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2018,20:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 03 2018,19:35)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
The judge did not expect them to stop attacking another theory.  That would be wrong.  He expected them to provide valid justification for their attacks, and they had none, which is not how science works.


If the defendants had "valid justification" then it would not have been an "attack" it would more specifically have been "scientific evidence against". Attacks are uncalled for comments, like many of yours are.

Your diversion to what Judge Jones needed to question after the defendants made it part of their defense does not change his having expected how a "mechanism" works to be explained by their "theory", which was being claimed to prove Darwinian theory wrong and such. If they really had what they claimed they did then there would have been some valid justification for the actions of the defendants. Duh?

     
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
My position about the origin of intelligence (like the origin of life) is "we know very little about it".  However, when you are slamming natural selection and evolutionary biology, making claims that are clearly wrong, based on your misunderstandings of the field, I object to that.


Stop acting like I took your rattle away, by simply following what Judge Jones during the Dover trial also said was necessary. I seriously must not care about what the Darwinian theory you would rather discuss says. It makes no predictions in regards to an "intelligent cause" anyway. Keep them separated.

     
Quote (N.Wells @ June 02 2018,20:33)
When your model models a hippocampus in creature that doesn't have one, I object.


You sure do a lot of whining about temporary cosmetic details of a work in progress that now also has echo location, when you should be happy I got that far on no budget at all. From my perspective you're only being like a brat that always has to be the center of attention with something that does not help explain how an "intelligent" cause works. If it is discovered that a circuit is better modeled another way then it's a minor change to update, theory remains standing because of already being the best there is for scientifically explaining how a mechanism of "intelligent cause" works.

Quit whining and do the work you need to do to justify your ideas.

Scientists are expected to attack theories and hypotheses, but there are standards in how to do that (you make and attempt to falsify predictions, and present evidence).

I am not diverting to what Judge Jones should have done.  I am talking about what he did.  I do not remember him saying that attacking a theory is wrong.  I do recall that he expected certain levels of evidence and details that the creationists / IDists did not have.  In both of those he was correct, and in the second of those I'm agreeing with you.  Your problem is that you are falling short of your own standards.

 
Quote
I seriously must not care

Say what?
 
Quote
about what the Darwinian theory you would rather discuss says. It makes no predictions in regards to an "intelligent cause" anyway. Keep them separated.
 
Again, you are misrepresenting my point.  I don't want to discuss evolutionary theory EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT that you keep misrepresenting it and making incorrect and unjustified claims against it that are rooted solely in your misunderstanding.  If you don't say anything wrong about biology and scientific methodology, I couldn't care less whether or not you waste your time on an irrelevant simulation of a fictional critter.

 
Quote
something that does not help explain how an "intelligent" cause works. If it is discovered that a circuit is better modeled another way then it's a minor change to update, theory remains standing because of already being the best there is for scientifically explaining how a mechanism of "intelligent cause" works.

That middle bit is only true if the circuit is known to exist and if the improvement is shown to be closer to reality than what preceded it.

For your stuff to be better than "we don't know" you need clear and valid definitions (or use terminology in standard ways) so that people can understand what you are talking about, clear and valid operational definitions so that people know how to measure what you are talking about to ensure that it is real, and it would help hugely if you provided some supporting evidence to convince people that you had something worth paying attention to, as opposed to a giant pile of speculative and ultimately meaningless manure.  It would further help not to sprinkle the pile with a whole lot of statements that are factually wrong, otherwise your audience will quickly conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 03 2018,21:28   

So I went back to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board to see exactly what Judge Jones said about science and theory.

Here's what the judge concluded about whether something is a scientific theory
 
Quote
cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.


Notice that none of that is true of your pile of nonsense.


Also, he did not say that attacking a theory is bad. He did say that
 
Quote
(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.


As is true of your stuff, Jones noted that
Quote
it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.


 
Quote
Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.
 By those standards, so far, you have not demonstrated that your stuff rises as high as being science.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,00:30   

I just learned about this fantastic new video about traveling waves! The whole thing is worth watching but in case you're in a hurry I'll point it to the surprise "waves on a pond" analogy and other things you might recall my mentioning:

Terry Sejnowski, Salk Institute: The global brain

This is very very good news. The wave generating models are now just the thing to as simply as possible experiment with the complicated sounding waves all of neuroscience is now excited about. Showing how easy it is to navigate with them is then a good thing to know, worth explaining too.

It has suddenly become absurd to need piles of evidence to support the wave related components of the model/theory. Explaining how to make a K-12 simple traveling wave alone is now enough to be educationally useful.

--------------
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: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,00:42   

I should in this case say "ripples in a pond" as in the video. I'm partial to using the word "waves" as in electronic sine-waves from a transmitter or AC generator, but same thing.

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,05:05   

Quote
It has suddenly become absurd to need piles of evidence to support the wave related components of the model/theory.


Interesting, but I'm not sure if everyone can see how not needing evidence is a logical conclusion from the speaker saying things like "metaphorical", "still early days", "none of this is proven, it's all speculation", "we really need to look at...", and "we should be able to  ... actually do some experiments".

Also, what wave-related components?  You have only one unclear statement about 'proving that multicellular intelligence operates by clock cycles by using an EEG to detect brain waves.'

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,20:14   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 04 2018,05:05)
 
Quote
It has suddenly become absurd to need piles of evidence to support the wave related components of the model/theory.


Interesting, but I'm not sure if everyone can see how not needing evidence is a logical conclusion from the speaker saying things like "metaphorical", "still early days", "none of this is proven, it's all speculation", "we really need to look at...", and "we should be able to  ... actually do some experiments".

Also, what wave-related components?  You have only one unclear statement about 'proving that multicellular intelligence operates by clock cycles by using an EEG to detect brain waves.'

A video that sums up piles of science papers (so that the reader does not have to do it on their own) saves us all a whole lot of time and trouble.

But seeing how you asked for it here's thousands of papers to study, now start reading!

scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=cortical+traveling+wave+&btnG=

There is also:


www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/84oun9/brain_activity_while_reading/

Wave related component = Spatial navigation network.

And where did I say "proving that multicellular intelligence operates by clock cycles by using an EEG to detect brain waves."?

I do not recall ever saying 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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,20:47   

Page 33,  
Quote
Multicellular intelligence produced by a brain operates with clock cycles that can be detected from the outside by tuning to waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG) machine to detect brain waves


But you misunderstand my question.  I understand what the video you linked to was talking about.  I do not understand where in your pile of not-a-theory you say anything that implies or predicts getting information out of interference patterns in standing waves in the brain, or that interfering wave patterns should exist in the brain or be useful to it.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2018,22:25   

I improved the sentence:

Multicellular intelligence has a “brain” and its brainwaves can be detected from the outside by an electroencephalograph (EEG). In humans intelligence can be gauged using academic test scores and personal accomplishments, while for other animals mazes or other cognitive tests are used.

The mess was caused by a long time ago trying to make the section flow with the section for electronic models that emit RF waves that can be detected with an ordinary AM/FM radio receiver.

The traveling wave information is not in the ID theory text. That is for at least now beyond its scope. A spatial network is not necessarily a requirement for intelligence, it's a type of guess mechanism that can be added into the circuit.

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

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

So, it seems absurd to assert that,  
Quote
It has suddenly become absurd to need piles of evidence to support the wave related components of the model/theory.


You've got to stop tossing in buzzwords and shiny science stuff just because it makes your stuff sound more science-y.

Quote
Multicellular intelligence has a “brain” and its brainwaves can be detected from the outside by an electroencephalograph (EEG). In humans intelligence can be gauged using academic test scores and personal accomplishments, while for other animals mazes or other cognitive tests are used.


So this gets us right back to one of my earliest questions.  You've claimed that multicellular intelligence sits atop multiple lower levels of intelligence, so it ought to be well established, right?  So how do we recognize and assess intelligence in a mushroom or an oak tree or a tumor?  Which is more intelligent, roses or seaweed, and how can we tell?  Were exactly is the brain in a jellyfish and how does it work?  (Do we have to assume a hippocampus there too?)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,07:12   

In the Panda's Thumb topic is a useful PBS video for the definition of theory and hypothesis:

disq.us/p/1t19kd2

It seems like everyone is essentially on the same page with what the video shows. Since the video did not go into detail on the subject I should though add that climate change theory goes back billions of years, not a post Industrial Age limited political issue.

There is upcoming tracksite work I need to prepare for. This is a bad time to argue over buzz words I don't see in a sentence and what's more intelligent than something else. But if you N.Wells want to test the model/theory then do something like (from the behavior of matter on up) program the inner workings of living things then show me what needs to be changed. That is what this theory must explain how to do.

I would though be interested in information on chemical detection of bone casts and where small animals decomposed inside siltstone deposits that were originally oxidative and possibly acidic, but had a good amount of iron.

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,09:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 08 2018,07:12)
In the Panda's Thumb topic is a useful PBS video for the definition of theory and hypothesis:

disq.us/p/1t19kd2

It seems like everyone is essentially on the same page with what the video shows. Since the video did not go into detail on the subject I should though add that climate change theory goes back billions of years, not a post Industrial Age limited political issue.

There is upcoming tracksite work I need to prepare for. This is a bad time to argue over buzz words I don't see in a sentence and what's more intelligent than something else. But if you N.Wells want to test the model/theory then do something like (from the behavior of matter on up) program the inner workings of living things then show me what needs to be changed. That is what this theory must explain how to do.

I would though be interested in information on chemical detection of bone casts and where small animals decomposed inside siltstone deposits that were originally oxidative and possibly acidic, but had a good amount of iron.

Well, thanks for proving my point that your pile of stuff is not a theory.

The video is pretty good, but you aren't paying attention to what it says.  Here are the relevant points that it makes, with [....] indicating my additional comments.

1) Facts = observations.

2) Hypothesis  = something you test.

3) Once you've discarded all but one hypothesis, the one that is left over is a possible explanation, that is not as yet disproven.

4) Once you have enough non-disproven hypotheses and can synthesize them into something greater [i.e. a coherent larger explanation], then you have a theory, and the great thing about a theory is that it allows you to make predictions.

5) Someone's speculative idea is not a theory, but an hypothesis.

6) Law = statement [often mathematical] based on experimental observations that describe some phenomenon of nature

Your not-a-theory fails with point 5 - it's just speculative ideas.  It also fails on point #4, because you haven't tested it yet.  You haven't posed hypotheses, and you haven't tested them, and you haven't constructed your theory out of the framework of including as-yet not disproven hypotheses, while also excluding the disproven hypotheses.  In fact, you have yet to provide any evidence at all that your not-a-theory is correct or even that the mechanisms you propose are real. (Note that hypotheses passing tests and predictions of theories proving correct are how hypotheses and theories garner the widespread support that I keep harping on.)  Your not-a-theory is simply based on your ideas of the way things ought to be, which is not enough to qualify it as a theory.

Point 2 might APPEAR to offer you some support on hypotheses, because the video just says "something you can test", which is the same as your Dinosaur Train concept.  However, this is incomplete.  Note that the video says very little about hypotheses because its concern is justifying the Theory of Evolution as a well-supported conclusion rather than just a guess.  Point 3 says that once you've excluded all but one of your hypotheses, the one that remains is a possible explanation.   That implies that the others were also possible explanations, at least up until the point that they were disproven.  Most, although not all, useful hypotheses are indeed potential explanations.

Note that your ideas also fail to qualify as hypotheses (good ones, anyway) because they do not consist of "something you can test".  Most are not phrased well enough to understand what you mean, which is one way of making them untestable, and worse, they cannot be tested because you use terms in non-standard ways but do not follow that up with operational definitions so that the rest of us can know how to measure what you are talking about.  The definitions that you provide are not operational definitions, and are so murky and problematic as regular definitions that we in fact frequently have trouble understanding what we should be measuring, quite apart from how to measure it.

The video is incomplete, though not wrong, about scientific laws.  In contrast to theories, laws are much simpler statements about single principles or relationships.  They vary from statements of general principles, more like axioms or postulates, that don’t require corroboration (like the Law of Superposition), to descriptions, often mathematical, of what regularly happens (e.g., Boyle’s Law, Newton’s Law of Gravity).  Laws ideally have no exceptions (like the Laws of Thermodynamics), but exceptions usually turn up (especially for descriptive laws), or they turn out to be applicable only within specific contexts or situations.  For example, Hooke's Law can be described only slightly tongue in cheek as "Materials extend linearly, except when they don't."  Chemistry and physics have lots of laws, with most dating from their early days, when reductionism was able to easily reveal many fundamental principles.  Geologists and biologists don’t use the term much anymore, in part because their subjects are too complex to be whittled down to simple mathematical statements, and also because so many biological and geological laws have turned out to be wrong, so they just tend to stick with “theory” as the top echelon.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1694
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,10:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 08 2018,07:12)
In the Panda's Thumb topic is a useful PBS video for the definition of theory and hypothesis:

disq.us/p/1t19kd2

It seems like everyone is essentially on the same page with what the video shows. Since the video did not go into detail on the subject I should though add that climate change theory goes back billions of years, not a post Industrial Age limited political issue.

There is upcoming tracksite work I need to prepare for. This is a bad time to argue over buzz words I don't see in a sentence and what's more intelligent than something else. But if you N.Wells want to test the model/theory then do something like (from the behavior of matter on up) program the inner workings of living things then show me what needs to be changed. That is what this theory must explain how to do.

I would though be interested in information on chemical detection of bone casts and where small animals decomposed inside siltstone deposits that were originally oxidative and possibly acidic, but had a good amount of iron.

Gary, all you have are buzz words.  You never explain any of them, and you either throw a tantrum about people being mean to you or run away claiming not have time when anyone points out that they aren't connected to reality.

Get this through your unbelievably thick skull, we aren't playing semantic games.  We are pointing out that you are trying to use words to claim status you haven't earned.  You are doing the scientific equivalent of prancing about with a uniform covered in medals when you never enlisted.  Feel free to run away and claim you're too busy, but no one is going to respect you or your notions until you show some integrity.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2904
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,14:02   



--------------
"[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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,18:34   

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 08 2018,10:11)
Get this through your unbelievably thick skull, we aren't playing semantic games.  We are pointing out that you are trying to use words to claim status you haven't earned.

Again, there is no scientific need to "claim status" for a "theory" it's something a person simply writes. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. And by the way:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

--------------
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: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,18:50   

Quote (fnxtr @ June 08 2018,14:02)


Bebe Rexha - Meant to Be (feat. Florida Georgia Line) [Official Music Video]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDo0H8Fm7d0
-

--------------
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: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,19:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 08 2018,18:34)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 08 2018,10:11)
Get this through your unbelievably thick skull, we aren't playing semantic games.  We are pointing out that you are trying to use words to claim status you haven't earned.

Again, there is no scientific need to "claim status" for a "theory" it's something a person simply writes. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. And by the way:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

No, as the video that YOU cited says, a theory is not just something someone proposes - it is a synthesis of tested and survived hypotheses into a grander explanatory scheme.  You haven't done that.  YOU are wrongly "claiming status" - Texas Teach's analogy with wearing medals that you haven't earned is very apt here as wearing a medal implies that you earned it.  

It is unrealistic to expect science to take seriously anything anyone proposes as a thesis without them having done the basic legwork and come up with some supporting evidence and showing how the theory has successfully made some logically entailed predictions.

Darwin is an excellent case in point.  He wasn't appropriately humble in letting the community be the first to call his ideas a theory, but he did accumulate several books full of evidence and proposed several testable predictions, including the one you quoted.  He made his case convincingly enough (and largely by evidence, not rhetoric*) that many of his readers shared Huxley's reaction, "How extremely stupid (of me) not to have thought of that!".  You might notice that that is not the reaction you are getting from your very few readers.

*In that particular instance, his answer to his proposed origin of complex organs was part evidence (showing multiple different degrees of development of eyes) and part rhetoric, but nonetheless it offers a valid testable prediction.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2904
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,19:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 08 2018,16:50)
Quote (fnxtr @ June 08 2018,14:02)


Bebe Rexha - Meant to Be (feat. Florida Georgia Line) [Official Music Video]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDo0H8Fm7d0
-

QED

--------------
"[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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2018,23:06   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 08 2018,09:44)
5) Someone's speculative idea is not a theory, but an hypothesis.


And? Wasn't that all along what I have been saying is wrong with the Discovery Institute's premise/hypothesis for a "theory"?

Everyone needs to be on the same page in regards to what is what. The (wrong to begin with) "layman's definition" is being made gone. You should be thrilled.

Using definitions worthy of a "scientist" makes it possible for we the people to write a theory when we want to, everything's under control.

What matters is after all these years the theory I have been explaining is no issue to the areas of science they concern, it's still standing:

Taron Egerton - I'm Still Standing
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai8mhPpOUWA

The DI's premise/hypothesis for a theory is still alive and kicking in the model/theory I have. This in turn causes a perfect storm inside, the big tent. It's in a way raised up into the air while this plays loudly then is (for the sake of spectators) brought safely crashing back down.

Simple Minds - Alive And Kicking
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljIQo1OHkTI

I'm helping to make science fun, for generations to come. With this being a DI declared "culture war" applicable examples of "life imitating art" such as these are warranted, even 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.

   
  18551 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (619) < ... 611 612 613 614 615 [616] 617 618 619 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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