RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 610 611 612 613 614 [615] 616 617 618 619 620 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,02:07   

Gaulin, I see that you ignored the points of my post that totally undo your bullshit.

When are you going to grow a backbone and answer the many, many questions you have been asked?

Don't bother, we already know the answer. You can't.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,02:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ 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.

No, that's not how those things are defined, and it's not how they are used in science.

Yes, science does indeed consider theories to be tentative. Nothing is ever completely proven, because it is always possible that someone will come up with a better explanation that had not been thought of before.  That does not mean that any new crazy idea with no supporting evidence also gets to be a theory, competing on equal footing with the current theory.  Also note that disproof is considered to be much more solid, assuming the work was done competently.

You only get to say "use theories as they are intended to be used" if you know how they are used.  You are demonstrating that you do not understand hypotheses and theories.

Yes, "widely accepted" is fuzzy: the lower boundary for a theory is grey.  However, a good indicator is that if its only proponent is the person who thought it up, then that is neither a theory nor is it widely accepted.

"a hypothesis with the name of a theory in it also called a premise."  Those are three very different things.  The fact that you and the DI get them confused suggests that you are clueless about them.

 
Quote
even though how the said "intelligent cause" works is never explained ........... Having for so long missed this rather vital detail

Worse, they neither explain what the "intelligent cause" is, nor how it works, nor even provide any evidence that it exists or is necessary.  That you think people have not been aware of this problem suggests that you haven't been paying attention.
Even worse than that, you haven't done any of those things either.  You think you have, but you haven't.  This partly because your writing is so atrocious, partly because you have not provided supporting evidence, partly because your model is irrelevant to so many of your major claims, partly because some of your definitions are logically invalid, partly because you don't provide clear definitions where needed, and partly because you lack operational definitions.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,05:19   

Quote
Kathy Martin


I missed this reference whilst trying to interpret Gaulin's mangling of the English language.

Gaulin, did you mean the kooky creationist who was kicked off the board of education or the world authority on mountain grouse?

We know, even at your age, you still dream about her. (Hur, Hur)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,05:29   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,02:22)
You only get to say "use theories as they are intended to be used" if you know how they are used.  You are demonstrating that you do not understand hypotheses and theories.

I have read more than enough neuroscience papers that compare the latest THEORIES for me to know that you are full of shit.

Your need to turn hypotheses into theories is something I thought only the Discovery Institute would need to do. Do you work for them?

--------------
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: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,05:52   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 29 2018,05:19)
Quote
Kathy Martin

Gaulin, did you mean the kooky creationist who was kicked off the board of education....

Kathy Martin was later reelected.

--------------
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: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,06:46   

Quote
Kathy Martin was later reelected.


What a crying shame. No wonder your state has such a poor record in education.

I notice your further evasion of the points that make your 'theory' nothing more than pseudoscience.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,06:48   

Quote
Your need to turn hypotheses into theories is something I thought only the Discovery Institute would need to do. Do you work for them?


Further underlining you total misunderstanding of how science works.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,12:53   

I said “major advances are made mostly by proposing and testing potential explanations, and that is the job of hypotheses”.
Gary, you said, “You are then testing theories” and “The hypothesis is the only one of the two that does not require explaining how something works.”

Yes, we do test theories and theories are ultimately tentative, but they differ from hypotheses generally in terms of being much broader explanations and in terms of having passed more tests and having more confirmation and wider acceptance.  Gary, you disagree, because you call your pile of rank speculation a scientific theory.

So, let’s see what some other people, much smarter than both of us put together, have to say.  I’ve annotated the quotes below with “(A)” to indicate that the quote addresses whether hypotheses can contain potential explanations and “(B)” to indicate that it addresses whether proposals need to be significant confirmatory evidence and acceptance before rising to the level of a theory.

First a general caution:    
Quote
Don’t confuse hypothesis and theory. The former is a possible explanation; the latter, the correct one. The establishment of theory is the very purpose of science.
Martin H. Fischer
[Also, (A), (B): 2 points to me]


And about theories requiring considerable confirmation:
 
Quote
A theory is a verified hypothesis, after it has been submitted to the control of reason and experimental criticism. The soundest theory is one that has been verified by the greatest number of facts.
Claude Bernard
Introduction à l'Étude de la Médecine Expérimentale (1865), 385.
[(B): 1 point to me]


 
Quote
A theory is certainly NOT mere subjective speculation, or something that is probably wrong, but, quite the contrary, something that has been scrutinized by the scientific process of empirical validation and has, so far, passed the test of explaining the data.
MARCELO GLEISER, "Why Is 'Theory' Such A Confusing Word?", NPR, March 23, 2016
[(B): 1 point to me]


 
Quote
Theories are neither hunches nor guesses. They are the crown jewels of science.
CARL ZIMMER, "In Science, It's Never 'Just a Theory'", New York Times, April 8, 2016
[(B): 1 point to me]



Let’s look at a nice old quote from Robert Boyle: note how “good hypotheses.....explicate phenomena”
 
Quote
The Requisites of a good Hypothesis are:
That It be Intelligible.
That It neither Assume nor Suppose anything Impossible, unintelligible, or demonstrably False.
That It be consistent with Itself.
That It be lit and sufficient to Explicate the Phaenomena, especially the chief.
That It be, at least, consistent, with the rest of the Phaenomena It particularly relates to, and do not contradict any other known Phaenomena of nature, or manifest Physical Truth.
The Qualities and Conditions of an Excellent Hypothesis are:
That It be not Precarious, but have sufficient Grounds In the nature of the Thing Itself or at least be well recommended by some Auxiliary Proofs.
That It be the Simplest of all the good ones we are able to frame, at least containing nothing that is superfluous or Impertinent.
That It be the only Hypothesis that can Explicate the Phaenomena; or at least, that do's Explicate them so well.
That it enable a skilful Naturalest to foretell future Phaenomena by the Congruity or Incongruity to it; and especially the event of such Experlm'ts as are aptly devis'd to examine It, as Things that ought, or ought not, to be consequent to It.
Robert Boyle
[(A): 1 point to me]



And again on hypotheses including explanations:
 
Quote
History, human or geological, represents our hypothesis, couched in terms of past events, devised to explain our present-day observations.
Marion King Hubbert
'Critique of the Principle of Uniformity', in C. C. Albritton (ed.), Uniformity and Simplicity (1967), 30.
[(A): 1 point to me]



In the following quote, note how his hypotheses contain potential explanations and how hypotheses get raised to theories by confirmation.
 
Quote
I am now convinced that we have recently become possessed of experimental evidence of the discrete or grained nature of matter, which the atomic hypothesis sought in vain for hundreds and thousands of years. The isolation and counting of gaseous ions, on the one hand, which have crowned with success the long and brilliant researches of J.J. Thomson, and, on the other, agreement of the Brownian movement with the requirements of the kinetic hypothesis, established by many investigators and most conclusively by J. Perrin, justify the most cautious scientist in now speaking of the experimental proof of the atomic nature of matter, The atomic hypothesis is thus raised to the position of a scientifically well-founded theory, and can claim a place in a text-book intended for use as an introduction to the present state of our knowledge of General Chemistry.
— Wilhelm Ostwald
In Grundriss der allgemeinen Chemie (4th ed., 1909), Preface, as cited by Erwin N. Hiebert and Hans-Gunther Korber in article on Ostwald in Charles Coulston Gillespie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography Supplement 1, Vol 15-16, 464
[(A), (B), 2 points to me]


Here’s a guy pointing out that an hypothesis that involves only whether a supposed fact is true is unexciting.
 
Quote
A biologist, if he wishes to know how many toes a cat has, does not "frame the hypothesis that the number of feline digital extremities is 4, or 5, or 6," he simply looks at a cat and counts. A social scientist prefers the more long-winded expression every time, because it gives an entirely spurious impression of scientificness to what he is doing.
— Anthony Standen
In Science is a Sacred Cow (1950), 151.



 
Quote
A theory is a supposition which we hope to be true, a hypothesis is a supposition which we expect to be useful.
— G. Johnstone Stoney
As quoted by William Ramsay, in 'Radium and Its Products', Harper’s Magazine (Dec 1904), 52.


 
Quote
All interpretations made by a scientist are hypotheses, and all hypotheses are tentative. They must forever be tested and they must be revised if found to be unsatisfactory. Hence, a change of mind in a scientist, and particularly in a great scientist, is not only not a sign of weakness but rather evidence for continuing attention to the respective problem and an ability to test the hypothesis again and again.
— Ernst Mayr
The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance (1982), 831.
[(B): One point for me]



 
Quote
It is often held that scientific hypotheses are constructed, and are to be constructed, only after a detailed weighing of all possible evidence bearing on the matter, and that then and only then may one consider, and still only tentatively, any hypotheses. This traditional view however, is largely incorrect, for not only is it absurdly impossible of application, but it is contradicted by the history of the development of any scientific theory. What happens in practice is that by intuitive insight, or other inexplicable inspiration, the theorist decides that certain features seem to him more important than others and capable of explanation by certain hypotheses. Then basing his study on these hypotheses the attempt is made to deduce their consequences. The successful pioneer of theoretical science is he whose intuitions yield hypotheses on which satisfactory theories can be built, and conversely for the unsuccessful (as judged from a purely scientific standpoint).
— Sir Fred Hoyle
Co-author with Raymond Arthur Lyttleton, in 'The Internal Constitution of the Stars', Occasional Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society 1948, 12, 90.
[(A), 1 point for me]



Well, those are old dudes, and perhaps traditions have changed.  After all, the way Newton used terminology about hypotheses and the like certainly does not follow modern usage.  So let’s see some recent treatments.  You like dictionary definitions, so let’s start with Merriam-Webster:

Merriam Webster
 
Quote

A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.  .....A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.  ..... A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.
[(B): 1 point to me]




https://lifehacker.com/the-dif....2904200
 
Quote
Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. ..... Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
[(A), (B): 2 points for me]



https://www.diffen.com/differe...._Theory
 
Quote
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Hypothesis versus Theory comparison chart


Definition--
Hypothesis:  A suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
Theory: In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.

Based on--
Hypothesis: Suggestion, possibility, projection or prediction, but the result is uncertain.
Theory: Evidence, verification, repeated testing, wide scientific consensus

Testable? --
Hypothesis:  Yes
Theory: Yes

Falsifiable? --
Hypothesis:  Yes
Theory: Yes Yes Yes

Is well-substantiated?
Hypothesis:  No
Theory: Yes

Is well-tested?
Hypothesis:  No
Theory: Yes

Data:
Hypothesis: Usually based on very limited data  
Theory: Based on a very wide set of data tested under various circumstances.

Instance:
Hypothesis: Specific: Hypothesis is usually based on a very specific observation and is limited to that instance.
Theory: General: A theory is the establishment of a general principle through multiple tests and experiments, and this principle may apply to various specific instances.

Purpose
Hypothesis: To present an uncertain possibility that can be explored further through experiments and observations.
Theory: To explain why a large set of observations are consistently made.
[(A), (B): 2 points to me]




From https://futurism.com/hypothe....-or-law
 
Quote
Hypothesis
A hypothesis is a reasonable guess based on something that you observe in the natural world. And while hypotheses are proven and disproven all of the time, the fact that they are disproven shouldn’t be read as a statement against them. In truth, hypotheses are the foundation of the scientific method.  As a refresher, here’s how the scientific method works: After making an observation and formulating a question, a scientist must create a hypothesis — a potential answer to the question. They then make a testable prediction, test this prediction (over and over and over), and analyze the data. Once this is done, they can then state whether or not their hypothesis was correct.  Even then, a hypothesis needs to be tested and retested many times by many different experts before it is generally accepted in the scientific community as being true.

Theory
A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported by repeated testing. Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. A theory must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven.
[(B): 1 point to me]




From https://bscdesigner.com/article....od.html
 
Quote
The scientific method can be broken down into four steps:
   Observe and describe the phenomenon (or group of various phenomena).
   Create a hypothesis that explains the phenomena. In physics, this often means creating a mathematical relation or a causal mechanism.
   Use this hypothesis to attempt to predict other related phenomena or the results of another set of observations.
   Test the performance of these predictions using independent experiments.
If the results of these experiments support the hypothesis, then it may become a theory or even a law of nature.
[(A), (B): 2 points to me]


https://www.livescience.com/21491-w....ry.html
 
Quote
The process of becoming a scientific theory:
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, an hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support an hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
[(A), (B): 2 points to me]


http://www.oakton.edu/user.......hod.htm
 
Quote
THE  SCIENTIFIC  METHOD
   The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory.  The process of establishing a new scientific theory is necessarily a grueling one; new theories must survive an adverse gauntlet of skeptics who are experts in their particular area of science; the original theory may then need to be revised to satisfy those objections.  The typical way in which new scientific ideas are debated are through refereed scientific journals, such as Nature and Scientific American.  (Depending upon the area of science, there are many other journals specific to their respective fields that act as referees.)   Before a new theory can be officially proposed to the scientific community, it must be well-written, documented and submitted to an appropriate scientific journal for publication.  If the editors of these prestigious publications accept a research article for publication, they are signaling that the proposed theory has enough merit to be seriously debated and scrutinized closely by experts in that particular field of science.  Skeptics or proponents of alternative or opposing theories may then try to submit their research and data, while the original proponents of the proposed theory may publish new data that answers the skeptics.  It may take many years of often acrimonious debate to settle an issue, resulting in the adoption, modification, or rejection of a new theory.  For example, the Alvarez Meteorite Impact theory (a 6-mile wide meteorite struck the earth 65 million years ago, ending the Cretaceous Period and causing extinction of the dinosaurs), was first proposed in 1979, and took about 10 years of debate before winning over the majority of earth scientists.

   A successful scientific inquiry may culminate in a well-tested, well-documented explanation (theory) that is supported overwhelmingly by valid data, and often has the power to predict the outcome of certain scenarios, which may be tested by future experiments.  There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.

   Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:

   Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
   Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations.  Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
   After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data.   Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
   Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern.  If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one.  In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data.  (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method.  A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
   If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
   A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory.   Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.
[(A), (B): 2 points to me]


I make that 23 points for me and none for you.
(So maybe my hypotheses that you don't know what you are talking about have become a more general theory about the state of your knowledge???)

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




Lastly, a warning that seems to have been written with you in mind:
 
Quote
If an explanation is so vague in its inherent nature, or so unskillfully molded in its formulation, that specific deductions subject to empirical verification or refutation can not be based upon it, then it can never serve as a working hypothesis. A hypothesis with which one can not work is not a working hypothesis.

— Douglas Wilson Johnson
'Role of Analysis in Scientific Investigation', Bulletin of the Geological Society of America (1933), 44, 479.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,16:02   

An excellent post, NWells.

I hope you haven't wasted too much time pointing out where Gaulin is wrong.

I offer odds that spineless Gaulin will ignore all of it and blithely carry on turning out drivel. Which he will then spread all over the internet like a farmer spreading manure. At least the farmer expects some results from his work. All Gaulin does is create a bad smell.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,16:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2018,05:15)
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.

How many times, when execrable writing on your part has been pointed out, have you blamed it on fatigue?  Your English composition skills are horseshit no matter what time of day it is, and you've apparently never done anything to improve the situation. This is prima facie evidence of either deliberate obfuscation or not caring whether you can be understood or not.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1949
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"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: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,18:02   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 29 2018,06:46)
Quote
Kathy Martin was later reelected.


What a crying shame. No wonder your state has such a poor record in education.

I am a resident of Massachusetts.

--------------
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: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,18:16   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 29 2018,16:06)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2018,05:15)
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.

How many times, when execrable writing on your part has been pointed out, have you blamed it on fatigue?  Your English composition skills are horseshit no matter what time of day it is, and you've apparently never done anything to improve the situation. This is prima facie evidence of either deliberate obfuscation or not caring whether you can be understood or not.

Then OK grammar nanny, how about this one that N.Wells found? Does this make it easy for you to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory and their purpose?
 
Quote
THE  SCIENTIFIC  METHOD
  The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory.


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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,18:48   

At least the Discovery Institute will approve of your definitions, especially parts like this:
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,12:53)
From https://futurism.com/hypothe....-or-law
       
Quote
........
Theory
...... A theory must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven.
[(B): 1 point to me]


--------------
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: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,19:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2018,18:48)
At least the Discovery Institute will approve of your definitions, especially parts like this:
       
Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,12:53)
From https://futurism.com/hypothe....-or-law
           
Quote
........
Theory
...... A theory must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven.
[(B): 1 point to me]

You misunderstand: that does not say that a theory must never be disproven, but that if and when it is disproved it fails to remain a valid theory.  In other words, it cannot be disproven and still remain a valid theory or of any scientific value.  This is a point you could usefully take to heart regarding Intelligent Design.

That was the fate of "phlogiston theory" - it's kind of grandfathered in as "phlogiston theory" if you are talking about wrong-headed notions in the early history of chemistry because it was once a reigning theory, but otherwise it no longer merits attention, investigation, or mention in textbooks as a valid theory.

And no, the DI cannot find any comfort in these quotes and definitions.



Quote
Then OK grammar nanny, how about this one that N.Wells found? Does this make it easy for you to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory and their purpose?
Quote

THE  SCIENTIFIC  METHOD
 The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory.


Although complex, a bit awkward, and almost as in love with appositional phrases as you, that is not actually wrong.  Unlike your stuff, the punctuation is correct, nothing is ungrammatical, the terms are appropriate, and it is actually complete and informative.  However, it would probably work better as two or more sentences.  I note that your programming is systematic, but otherwise your work does not seem to offer useful explanations, is not logical, does not collect useful information, doesn't involve hypotheses, doesn't test ideas, isn't refined, isn't well-documented, and isn't well supported by evidence, and doesn't rise to the level of a theory.  If you added all those qualities, you would be miles ahead of where you are now.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,22:23   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,19:13)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2018,18:48)
At least the Discovery Institute will approve of your definitions, especially parts like this:
           
Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,12:53)
From https://futurism.com/hypothe....-or-law
                 
Quote
........
Theory
...... A theory must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven.
[(B): 1 point to me]

You misunderstand: that does not say that a theory must never be disproven, but that if and when it is disproved it fails to remain a valid theory.  In other words, it cannot be disproven and still remain a valid theory or of any scientific value.  This is a point you could usefully take to heart regarding Intelligent Design.

The only thing you did is to help show the magnitude of the problem. And to better see what the statement actually says this is what happens when being more precise, by just saying "true" or "false" instead of twice trying to reinvent the wheel:

A theory must never be shown to be false; if it is, the theory is false.

Or as a single If..Then.. statement:

If a theory is shown to be false then it is false.

Statements like these are only great for getting everyone else stuck in the middle of semantic arguments where some for good enough reason object to using "proven" or "disproven" in regards to theories, then maybe at least a week of fighting to agree on punctuation.

--------------
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: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,23:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2018,22:23)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,19:13)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2018,18:48)
At least the Discovery Institute will approve of your definitions, especially parts like this:
               
Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,12:53)
From https://futurism.com/hypothe....-or-law
                     
Quote
........
Theory
...... A theory must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven.
[(B): 1 point to me]

You misunderstand: that does not say that a theory must never be disproven, but that if and when it is disproved it fails to remain a valid theory.  In other words, it cannot be disproven and still remain a valid theory or of any scientific value.  This is a point you could usefully take to heart regarding Intelligent Design.

The only thing you did is to help show the magnitude of the problem. And to better see what the statement actually says this is what happens when being more precise, by just saying "true" or "false" instead of twice trying to reinvent the wheel:

A theory must never be shown to be false; if it is, the theory is false.

Or as a single If..Then.. statement:

If a theory is shown to be false then it is false.

Statements like these are only great for getting everyone else stuck in the middle of semantic arguments where some for good enough reason object to using "proven" or "disproven" in regards to theories, then maybe at least a week of fighting to agree on punctuation.

Gary, the two writers there are trying to be a bit stylish in their writing, but it isn't working as well as one might hope.*  If you don't like it, okay.  Nonetheless, their intention is clear enough to me: a theory cannot, indeed must not, survive being disproven.  This is not grounds for an argument over semantics, because they continue by saying, "So, what happens when you have two theories that contradict each other, such as the Steady State and Big Bang theories ......... In this case, scientists made observations, hypotheses, and testable predictions to figure out which theory was right. For example, one scientist might observe that the universe is expanding, hypothesize that it had a beginning, and test their hypothesis by doing the math. Eventually, either one theory is overturned completely (in this case, the Big Bang theory turned out to be correct), or the correct aspects of each theory are combined to form a new theory — one singular theory."

*Not that you have standing to complain about less than clear writing, because your paragraphs are a morass of errors, abysmal word choice, undiagrammable pseudo-sentences, mangled concepts, and unfathomable ambiguities.

But this is all about you trying to wriggle out of being catastrophically wrong, isn't it?  You are not doing yourself any favors here - you are doing science wrongly, and if you don't come to grips with that and fix your problems, you will simply continue to do nothing of consequence.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2018,23:47   

And all Gaulin can do is double down on his egregious error.

However he has diverted this thread away from his even worse set of errors he calls a 'theory'.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,01:04   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,23:00)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2018,22:23)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,19:13)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2018,18:48)
At least the Discovery Institute will approve of your definitions, especially parts like this:
               
Quote (N.Wells @ May 29 2018,12:53)
From https://futurism.com/hypothe....-or-law
                     
Quote
........
Theory
...... A theory must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven.
[(B): 1 point to me]

You misunderstand: that does not say that a theory must never be disproven, but that if and when it is disproved it fails to remain a valid theory.  In other words, it cannot be disproven and still remain a valid theory or of any scientific value.  This is a point you could usefully take to heart regarding Intelligent Design.

The only thing you did is to help show the magnitude of the problem. And to better see what the statement actually says this is what happens when being more precise, by just saying "true" or "false" instead of twice trying to reinvent the wheel:

A theory must never be shown to be false; if it is, the theory is false.

Or as a single If..Then.. statement:

If a theory is shown to be false then it is false.

Statements like these are only great for getting everyone else stuck in the middle of semantic arguments where some for good enough reason object to using "proven" or "disproven" in regards to theories, then maybe at least a week of fighting to agree on punctuation.

Gary, the two writers there are trying to be a bit stylish in their writing, but it isn't working as well as one might hope.  If you don't like it, okay, but it's clear to me what they intend,......

What is clear to you is irrelevant. The definitions must make sense in code, be clear to at least a young teen, and quickly taught by a teacher. They need to as quickly as possible be relating it to computer models including how IBM Watson works.

Trying to "be a bit stylish" just mucks up the classroom with needless vocabulary homework and confusion. Takes away from what little class time students and teachers have.

What I may though be able to improve is explaining how "confidence level" adds a range from 0%=false to 100%=true. A theory is this way true, false, or somewhere in between. Your confidence for Darwinian theory could be 100% while for another person it's 50% or less.

As always the model based definitions reflect how our mind works, and have an intuitive vocabulary.

--------------
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: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,01:39   

Yes, focus on the most trivial point to avoid addressing all your hideous errors, such as the major flaws that Chemicat mentioned, and the fact that you are wrong about hypothesis and theory.

Quote
What is clear to you is irrelevant. The definitions must make sense in code, be clear to at least a young teen, and quickly taught by a teacher. They need to as quickly as possible be relating it to computer models including how IBM Watson works.

Trying to "be a bit stylish" just mucks up the classroom with needless vocabulary homework and confusion. Takes away from what little class time students and teachers have.

What I may though be able to improve is explaining how "confidence level" adds a range from 0%=false to 100%=true. A theory is this way true, false, or somewhere in between. Your confidence for Darwinian theory could be 100% while for another person it's 50% or less.

As always the model based definitions reflect how our mind works, and have an intuitive vocabulary.


Yes, what is clear to me is less important than what is clear to students.  However, otherwise, you are once again mostly wrong.  

First, stylish aphorisms, if carefully and perfectly worded, are worth a lot in education, because they make the material memorable and save a lot of time.  Nature red in tooth and claw; nature abhors a vacuum; Hypotheses are possible explanations, but theories are the correct ones. The soundest theory is one that has been verified by the greatest number of facts.  A theory is a supposition which we hope to be true, a hypothesis is a supposition which we expect to be useful.

I note that your code does not address your major claims against evolutionary biology and natural selection.  Also, young teens in school (other than in computer classes) do not have time in class to figure out computer code for models: they just use the models.  Most particularly, they are not going to learn how Watson works.

If "confidence levels" are going to be mentioned, it would be helpful if the teacher talked about statistical confidence levels, which are useful and real and and mathematical and non-arbitrary, as opposed to yours, which are unsupported and will merely be confusing.

For what it is worth, evolutionary biology's algorithms are well supported with many excellent computer models that mimic ecological outcomes with nonarbitrary mathematically calculated confidence levels greater than 95%
(because that's pretty much the standard for getting published).

"Model-based definitions" is ass-backward BS.  You try to create definition-based models, but you are failing miserably because your definitions are muddled and incompetent.  Even worse, science requires explicitly defined terminology.  It is nice if the terms are intuitive, but in a choice between intuitive and well-defined, the scientist must always go with good definitions, because intuition has a long record of getting scientists into trouble.  Much of scientific methods have been created to protect scientists from notoriously fallible intuition ("the scientific method is anything  that makes science scientist-proof"): hence our stress on making and testing predictions, multiple working hypotheses, developing supporting evidence, and so forth.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5436
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,10:58   

Re "A theory is a supposition which we hope to be true"

I think "hope" is the wrong word there. Take global warming for example; nobody wants it to be true. (Well, nobody with sense, empathy, and education, anyway.)

Plus, AFAIK, nobody (or not many bodies, anyway) wanted the big bang over steady state. Or evolution, either; but both of those are where the evidence led.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,13:50   

Quote (Henry J @ May 30 2018,10:58)
Re "A theory is a supposition which we hope to be true"

I think "hope" is the wrong word there. Take global warming for example; nobody wants it to be true. (Well, nobody with sense, empathy, and education, anyway.)

Plus, AFAIK, nobody (or not many bodies, anyway) wanted the big bang over steady state. Or evolution, either; but both of those are where the evidence led.

Fair point, although what was meant was "hope to be true while we are testing it," in other words, multiple working hypotheses, tested in good faith as if the hypothesis were expected to be true, with affection spread equally between the hypotheses.

"Hope" here is a bit like if you are doing a study of shipwrecks using binomial probability, a shipwreck counts as a "success".

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,13:53   

Quote
I am a resident of Massachusetts.


What crime has Massachusetts commited to deserve that?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5436
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1949
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"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: 3228
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,18:54   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 30 2018,13:59)
 
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.

Even the trees were a bad idea... etc...

--------------
"[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: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,19:38   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 30 2018,13:50)
...., with affection spread equally between the hypotheses.

Tears For Fears, Sowing The Seeds Of Love!


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

   
Henry J



Posts: 5436
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,20:11   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 30 2018,17:54)
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 30 2018,13:59)
 
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.

Even the trees were a bad idea... etc...

Yeah, those could leave people out on a limb.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2018,23:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2018,19:38)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 30 2018,13:50)
...., with affection spread equally between the hypotheses.

Tears For Fears, Sowing The Seeds Of Love!

'Spreading affection equally between your hypotheses' is from Chamberlin, 1890, Science, "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses", on how to do science.  

It's extremely good advice, especially for you, given that you have (at best) only one hypothesis and you are blindly infatuated with it, to the point of being unable to see any of the faults in it.

And quit evading the issues.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2018,04:59   

Quote
Yeah, those could leave people out on a limb.


Waiting for the Big White Handkerchief?

  
  18633 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 610 611 612 613 614 [615] 616 617 618 619 620 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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