FPGA Central

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:


> ... IMHO, most believers view atheism as
> another form of religion, so I think that a lot of people view the
> "flavor of evolution as taught in schools" as the establishment of a
> different kind of religion under a fig leaf of science. Ideally
> secularism should be completely neutral. Not sure if thats possible.

I'm an atheist. I don't maintain that there is no god, just not one that
matters. Those who hold that my belief is a religion are no more
justified than I would be if I held that theirs is was devil worship.
People who can't distinguish religion from a non-religious world view
have little worthwhile to say on religion and related subjects.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Donald wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree 100 percent!
>>>
>>>
>>>> --RY
>>>
>>>
>>> Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important.
>>
>>
>>
>> [That's a question, not a statement.]
>>
>> Are you responding to me, or was my post just a convenient place for
>> you to ask a question?
>>
>> If you are responding to me, then I claim your question is a
>> non-sequitur to my comment. Either creationist or
>> evolutionist could make this claim.
>
>
> <nit_pick_mode> I doubt that science can exist without philosophy, but
> do you claim that all philosophies are in some sense scientific?
> I think, therefor I do science? </nit_pick_mode>

I think that if a philosopher understood the way Galileo trumped
Aristolean reasoning, that would in some way influence their thought.
I don't think Nietzsche was scientific so if you count him as a
philosopher, the answer is no.

>
> Jerry

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>
>> ... IMHO, most believers view atheism as another form of religion,
>> so I think that a lot of people view the "flavor of evolution as
>> taught in schools" as the establishment of a different kind of
>> religion under a fig leaf of science. Ideally secularism should be
>> completely neutral. Not sure if thats possible.
>
>
> I'm an atheist. I don't maintain that there is no god, just not one that
> matters. Those who hold that my belief is a religion are no more
> justified than I would be if I held that theirs is was devil worship.
> People who can't distinguish religion from a non-religious world view
> have little worthwhile to say on religion and related subjects.
>
> Jerry

I think that there is wisdom in what you say. No one should be
obligated to be labeled. However, on the basis of Constitutional
establishment, I would apoligetically characterize your views as being
religious. I read somewhere once that the Supreme court had at least
once characterized Atheism as a religion. I can't cite the case so I am
most likely incorrect.

jim wrote:
>
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>
>>jim wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Evolution as a theory is tainted. It has been for over 150 years. ...
>>
>>That's an interesting assertion. What taints it?
>
>
> Well you could try reading the part that you snipped instead of asking me to
> repeat it.

I saw nothing in but unfounded assertions about unrelated issues. I
snipped it because it is irrelevant to the question I asked.

> It's tainted by the emotions of its proponents.

Emotions don't taint a theory. I suspect that you don't know what a
theory is.

> Take you and Mr. Cocky for instance your so blinded by your emotions you
> assert repeatedly that Mr. Hackney is a proponent of ID when he never said
> one thing in support of ID and has stated clearly he is not.

You can't cite a message in which I claim that Hackney proposes ID. I
haven't written one. You need to distinguish imagination from reality.

> One has to wonder why its so important to defend evolution. The argument
> is really about Hegemony. The proponents of evolution believe this so way to
> important for the standard rules to apply. If you lose this one everything
> changes. So there really is no room for someone who looks at the evidence and
> says 'well it looks to sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions'.

It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and what
is not. I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those who
believe them to be true. I do object to calling any of the currently
touted alternatives "science". Only theories that can generate testable
predictions are properly subjects of science. Some creationists
denigrate evolution by saying that it is "only" a theory. If course it's
a theory; it would not be scientific otherwise. I have little use for I
have little use for Revealed Truth in matters of scientific inquiry.

> The same thing, of course, applies to the proponents on the other side,
> but you already knew that.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
> jim wrote:
>
>>
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> jim wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Evolution as a theory is tainted. It has been for over 150 years. ...
>>>
>>>
>>> That's an interesting assertion. What taints it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well you could try reading the part that you snipped instead of asking
>> me to
>> repeat it.
>
>
> I saw nothing in but unfounded assertions about unrelated issues. I
> snipped it because it is irrelevant to the question I asked.
>
>> It's tainted by the emotions of its proponents.
>
>
> Emotions don't taint a theory. I suspect that you don't know what a
> theory is.
>
>> Take you and Mr. Cocky for instance your so blinded by your
>> emotions you
>> assert repeatedly that Mr. Hackney is a proponent of ID when he never
>> said
>> one thing in support of ID and has stated clearly he is not.
>
>
> You can't cite a message in which I claim that Hackney proposes ID. I
> haven't written one. You need to distinguish imagination from reality.
>
>> One has to wonder why its so important to defend evolution. The
>> argument
>> is really about Hegemony. The proponents of evolution believe this so
>> way to
>> important for the standard rules to apply. If you lose this one
>> everything
>> changes. So there really is no room for someone who looks at the
>> evidence and
>> says 'well it looks to sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions'.
>
>
> It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
> vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and what
> is not. I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those who
> believe them to be true. I do object to calling any of the currently
> touted alternatives "science". Only theories that can generate testable
> predictions are properly subjects of science.

How about string theory?

Some creationists
> denigrate evolution by saying that it is "only" a theory. If course it's
> a theory; it would not be scientific otherwise. I have little use for I
> have little use for Revealed Truth in matters of scientific inquiry.
>
>> The same thing, of course, applies to the proponents on the other
>> side,
>> but you already knew that.
>
>
> Jerry

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:

...

>> <nit_pick_mode> I doubt that science can exist without philosophy, but
>> do you claim that all philosophies are in some sense scientific?
>> I think, therefor I do science? </nit_pick_mode>
>
>
> I think that if a philosopher understood the way Galileo trumped
> Aristolean reasoning, that would in some way influence their thought.
> I don't think Nietzsche was scientific so if you count him as a
> philosopher, the answer is no.

Your view doesn't surprise me. It coincides with mine. I wondered what
Randy thinks. I hope He'll tell us.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:

>> It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
>> vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and what
>> is not. I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those who
>> believe them to be true. I do object to calling any of the currently
>> touted alternatives "science". Only theories that can generate
>> testable predictions are properly subjects of science.
>
>
> How about string theory?
>
If you watch the "The Elegant Universe" you'll see one of the leading
string theorists saying that at the moment string theory is untestable,
so for the moment it is just philosophy. Which is why there are string
theorists out there working hard trying to figure out how to test it.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>>> It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
>>> vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and
>>> what is not. I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those
>>> who believe them to be true. I do object to calling any of the
>>> currently touted alternatives "science". Only theories that can
>>> generate testable predictions are properly subjects of science.
>>
>>
>>
>> How about string theory?
>>
> If you watch the "The Elegant Universe" you'll see one of the leading
> string theorists saying that at the moment string theory is untestable,
> so for the moment it is just philosophy. Which is why there are string
> theorists out there working hard trying to figure out how to test it.
>
For the benefit of others:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

I don't think he said it is just philosophy. My memory is selective so
you might indeed be correct. I would call string theory an Aristolean
scientific theory.

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:

...

>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are
>> properly subjects of science.
>
> How about string theory?

String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
testable prediction, it will fade away.

Jerry
--
When a discovery is new, people say, "It isn't true."
When it becomes demonstrably true, they say, "It isn't useful."
Later, when its utility is evident, they say, "So what? It's old."
a paraphrase of William James
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Tim Wescott wrote:

> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>>> It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
>>> vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and
>>> what is not. I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those
>>> who believe them to be true. I do object to calling any of the
>>> currently touted alternatives "science". Only theories that can
>>> generate testable predictions are properly subjects of science.
>>
>>
>>
>> How about string theory?
>>
> If you watch the "The Elegant Universe" you'll see one of the leading
> string theorists saying that at the moment string theory is untestable,
> so for the moment it is just philosophy. Which is why there are string
> theorists out there working hard trying to figure out how to test it.
>

Tim,

The science is not what is testable. The science is what can be
disproved by an evidence. If there will be found a singe fact that comes
against the string theory then it will be the end for the string theory.

To the contrary, there could be no fact that disproves the ID or the
Communist theory. That's why it is not a science.

VLV

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>> subjects of science.
>>
>>
>> How about string theory?
>
>
> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
> testable prediction, it will fade away.
>
> Jerry

So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
establishment of a pasta deity.

Jerry Avins wrote:

>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>> subjects of science.
>>
>>
>> How about string theory?
>
>
> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
> testable prediction, it will fade away.

Here is a paradox of Bertrand Russel:

"Nobody survives the nuclear war"

If this is a true statement then it is not possible to test it ))

VLV

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>> subjects of science.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about string theory?
>>
>>
>> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>> testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>
>> Jerry
>
>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>establishment of a pasta deity.
>

String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
is, in principle, falsifiable.

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How about string theory?
>>>
>>>
>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>
>>>Jerry
>>
>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>
>
>
> String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
> is, in principle, falsifiable.

So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
explain this further. I don't get it.

You have to believe, in principle, that there is an experiment that
will refute the theory that no one (as yet) can figure out how to
validate. It seems to me like this is a step in faith or at least a
philosophical argument. A better theory might come along in principle,
but the same is also true of religion.

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> Just Cocky wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Jerry Avins wrote:
> >>
> >>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
> >>>>>subjects of science.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>How about string theory?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
> >>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
> >>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
> >>>
> >>>Jerry
> >>
> >>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
> >>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
> >>establishment of a pasta deity.
> >>
> >
> >
> > String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
> > is, in principle, falsifiable.
>
> So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
> explain this further. I don't get it.

A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
"science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How about string theory?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jerry
>>>>
>>>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>>>is, in principle, falsifiable.
>>
>>So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>>explain this further. I don't get it.
>
>
> A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
> on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
> holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
> "science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>
> Rune
>
So by this criteria string theory is, what?

Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
verified by experiment? What about dark matter in astronomy? It seem
that it take a bit of faith to believe that the experiments exist.

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> Just Cocky wrote:

...

>> String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>> is, in principle, falsifiable.
>
>
> So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
> explain this further. I don't get it.

He didn't write "falsified", but "falsifiable". If no circumstance can
demonstrate that a statement is false, that statement is not
falsifiable. "The sum of the squares on the two sides is equal to the
square on the hypotenuse" is falsifiable. That's just a way to say that
it's testable while specifying what a test must be able to do.

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:58:18 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How about string theory?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>>
>>>>Jerry
>>>
>>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>>
>>
>>
>> String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>> is, in principle, falsifiable.
>
>So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>explain this further. I don't get it.
>

If it's falsifibale, it's neither valid nor invalid. It's simply a
theory that can be called scientific. Given that there is no empirical
evidence for or against such theory, it's therefore speculative.

>
> You have to believe, in principle, that there is an experiment that
>will refute the theory that no one (as yet) can figure out how to
>validate.
>

The tests certianly exist. But they require access to very high energy
levels. The inability to test right now is essentially technological.

>
>It seems to me like this is a step in faith or at least a
>philosophical argument.
>

Faith for what? The theory either works or not. No one know right now.
Where's the faith?

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:22:16 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Rune Allnor wrote:
>> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>
>>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How about string theory?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jerry
>>>>>
>>>>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>>>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>>>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>>>>is, in principle, falsifiable.
>>>
>>>So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>>>explain this further. I don't get it.
>>
>>
>> A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
>> on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
>> holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
>> "science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>>
>> Rune
>>
>So by this criteria string theory is, what?
>

A speculative theory.

>
>Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
>verified by experiment?
>

The Theory of Evolution predicts that genomes change in response to
enviromental pressures. Ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

>
>What about dark matter in astronomy?
>

This is not a prediction. "Something" is there because it can actually
be measured.

>
>It seem that it take a bit of faith to believe that the experiments exist.
>

Experiment for what?

>
> A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
> on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
> holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
> "science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>
> Rune
>
Stated nicely on :
http://science.slashdot.org/article..../12/20/1656228

Evolution is a Theory in the Scientific Sense, "A set of statements or
principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially
one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be
used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

This is why it counts as "Science"

Intelligent Design is a theory in the colloquial sense, which is what
most of the definitions that include "Idle speculation" are referring
to. There is no Scientific Backing for Intelligent Design, which is why,
if it's taught in a classroom, it should be a theology class, not a
Science Class.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Theory%20

the·o·ry Pronunciation (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory
statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to
practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or
judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually
return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:

...

> Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
> verified by experiment? ...

Not all tests are the result of an experiment. Some consist simply of
finding evidence. The principles of evolution predict that there once
existed whale-like animals with vestigial hind legs. Creationists once
cited the absence of such a fossil as evidence of evolution's
invalidity. (Too stupid to recognize that lack of evidence is not the
same as contrary evidence, or twisting facts for rhetorical advantage?
Sometimes one, sometimes the other?) Such fossils have now been found,
both in Africa and Asia. Prediction: legged whales once existed.
Evidence: legged whale fossil whales. Such a case is not proof of a
theory's validity, but a "confirming instance". Some people alter facts
to fit a theory. Good science alters theories to fit facts.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[x-posting to talk.origins where this belongs; followup set accordingly]

In article <dockio$49f$[email protected]>,
Stan Pawlukiewicz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rune Allnor wrote:
>> A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
>> on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
>> holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
>> "science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.

I would add also that what we know as "science" doesn't have to
invoke the supernatural as an explanation.

>So by this criteria string theory is, what?

I don't know much about string theory myself; it seems to be a
mathematical construct devised to explain, describe, or unify other
parts of science. It doesn't invoke the supernatural. I personally
would classify it in the "tool development" subset of science.

>Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
>verified by experiment?

Gosh, where to begin? Here are a few. You can also look at
http://www.talkorigins.org for more.

================
Prediction: If all organisms evolved from a common ancestor, then
transitional forms must have existed in the past.

Experiment: Excavate fossils and observe.

Finding: Fossil record confirms that transitional forms exist.
Among the examples are many by which, beyond any doubt, a species
or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual
transformation is also exhibited by subfamilies and occasionally for
families.

(The fossil record isn't persuasive to creationists who point at
a gap, and when you fill it, they point at the two gaps on either
side. You can never fill enough gaps for them. But see the next
prediction.)

================
Prediction: Aside from the fossil record, we should be able to find
other corroborating evidence from fields of science unrelated to
paleontology.

Experiment: Look to other fields for corroboration. Some evidence
such as geological distribution was even known to Darwin, but other
evidence has only recently come within reach technologically.
Creationists tend to focus on paleontology in part because Darwin
saw the imperfect geological record as a weakness in his theory - he
devoted a full chapter to it.

Finding: Molecular biology provides some good examples, for
instance, the similarities in DNA of related organisms, or
quantitative variations in cell proteins that confirm genealogical
relationships. Cell proteins such as hemoglobin B, fibrinopeptide
A, or cytochrome C, can take on a bewildering myriad of forms, and
every species has unique forms of these proteins. The degree of
difference in protein forms can be quantified and used to determine
relation distance between two species. For example, a sparrow's
cytochrome C will have more similarity to a parrot's than to the
cytochrome C of an octopus. By analyzing molecular differences
between proteins of different species, we can reconstruct a "tree
of life" showing the genealogical relationships of the Earth's
creatures. You get similar trees using different proteins.

The fact that basing a molecular study on a different protein
results in a closely similar family tree is itself amazing,
considering that over 650 million possible trees can represent the
relationships between just 11 creatures. For twenty creatures, the
number of possible family trees is about 10^22. But what's really
amazing is that the resultant tree also agrees closely with the
fossil record tree from paleontology! This is a beautiful example of
how one science provides independent confirmation of findings from
another unrelated discipline.

There are many instances of independent confirmation from different
areas of science. For example, different methods of dating, using
radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, or corals, all give consistent
results. Such coherence practically requires that a theory be
accepted as fact for all intents and purposes. That's why scientists
accept evolution: when you have such a vast and diverse framework of
corroborating evidence, you don't need faith.

-A

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> > Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> >>
> >> How about string theory?
> >>
> > If you watch the "The Elegant Universe" you'll see one of the leading
> > string theorists saying that at the moment string theory is untestable,
> > so for the moment it is just philosophy. Which is why there are string
> > theorists out there working hard trying to figure out how to test it.
> >
>
> The science is not what is testable. The science is what can be
> disproved by an evidence. If there will be found a single fact that comes
> against the string theory then it will be the end for the string theory.

not necessarily the end of the whole theory, because if there is one
prediction that came out inconsistent with some evidence, they might be
able to adjust the theory to make it consistent with that evidence.
you can say that Newton's gravitation is wrong and that Einstein's is
right (because of some evidence that contradicts Newton's), but i would
say that, in a sorta loose and sophisticated way, that General
Relativity is an *adjustment* of Newton's gravitation that makes it
work in cases where it didn't before. the Darwinian theory of
evolution of species, natural selection, and the sorta random mutation
still works *only* because palentologists have made adjustments to
their "life tree" or "species descent chart" or whatever they call it,
when some newly discovered evidence proved some part of it wrong. they
didn't toss the whole chart, just dug out an eraser and drew some
different lines to make it fit the evidence.

r b-j

Just Cocky wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2005 02:02:16 -0800, "gold" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >I am surprised why peoples want to stick to an idea which was baseless
> >even when it was proposed as well as it is today specially when we are
> >scientifically so advanced that we have completely studied the human
> >cell and it is found to be astonishingly so complex which could never
> >possibly be mutated randomly.
> >
>
> The fact that you don't understand the ideas behind Evolution is a
> limitation of your brain, not of Nature's ability to evolve toward
> complexity.
>
>>>>The fact that you don't understand the ideas behind ID Creation is a limitation of your brain toooooo.


> >
> >But out there are poeples who want to teach their young generations
> >that there great great grand pa and ma was Monkey.
> >
>
> Your ignorance is noted. No one's ancestors were monkeys.
>>>> I was taking it as a general class such as your respected apes (*_*).
> >
> >The theory of evolution has so many holes that it should be rejected
> >now in our comtemporary age.
> >
>
> The holes aren't as big as your skull, though.
> >>>> But I'm sure it is larger than your empty skull.
> >
> >Random can never lead to intellegent and cannot always pick the best
> >choice or avail the best chance available. survival is impossible!!
> >
>
> Ok, here the thing. You are a retard. If you were the product of
> Intelligent Design, then you god is dumb as a brick.
>>> You have been given a time and brain to think (which seems to be empty right now), as soon as your time will end you will get to know clearly about this. Believe it or Not!!

Enjoy!!

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:22:16 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> What about dark matter in astronomy?

Interestingly, I read recently that some guys had figured out that they
can make "dark matter" go away by making a more accurate cosmological
model, based on relativistic mechanics, rather than Neutonian.

It's not my field, so I don't know if they've been shown to have made an
error or not, yet, but it seemed like a pretty neat piece of work, to an
outsider.

--
Andrew