Debate: Penguin vs Gyrene

[RTHolmes]

Which begs the question: If no one has observed anyone else's imaginary friend can we use the sliding scale of usefulness model to explain their potential existence based on how heated the arguments are from each proponent of a particular imaginary friend?

nope - empirical science requires observable phenomena. this falls squarely under metaphysical speculation (I'm assuming that by imaginary friend you mean the celestial teapot )

[gyrene81]

nope - empirical science requires observable phenomena. this falls squarely under metaphysical speculation (I'm assuming that by imaginary friend you mean the celestial teapot )

I thought he was talking about this guy...

[FireDrgn]

The answer is.....butterflies living near to a coal industry area in ....19th century England?

I am talking macro evolution not micro evolution.

[FireDrgn]

this guy gets science

I'm uncomfortable with people using the concept of proof, its appropriate for formal logic or mathematics but is an impossible goal for empirical science. scientific theories arent either true or false (they would be theroems if they could be proved,) they are merely tools we can use to predict or explain observed phenomena. as such they arent either true or false, but they are on a sliding scale of usefulness depending on their application.

"proof is an impossible goal for empirical science.

Is this a theory of yours or is it a true statment?                      If you have empirical science and you know you have empirical science. How would you need scientific theories?

<S>

[bozon]

According to some current theories, there was a single moment...somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years in the past (depending on who posted the theory)...of course there are a thousand different interpretations of the theory, and it is being revised as new discoveries are examined...but the one thing that hasn't changed is the beginning event, an explosion...Stephen Hawking is thinking that the answer lies within black holes (who incidentally is the first scientist I have ever heard of to admit one of his theories was wrong)...the theory posted on NASA's site claims an object just a few millimeters across held all the mass within the visible universe.

OK, it goes as so: The universe has an age, but no time of creation. Talking of a moment when "suddenly" there was a big bang suggest that time was passing while waiting for this big bang. There was no time, there was not even vacuum (which is very much "something" in quantum field theory). Therefore there was no black hole waiting to go boom or what ever. I get asked a lot "where was the big bang". It make sense that if the universe expanded from a point then you should be able to find that point. The correct answer is: here. I am standing in the exact place where the big bang happened... and so are you. All we space we know is that initial point and all time before the big bang was one point in a not-yet-ticking time.

In addition, the best current estimates are 13.7 billion years and this is not from theory, but observations. The theory interprets measurements (cosmic microwave background and supernova redshift measurements are the dominant) to give this age and the various estimates agree quite well, but nothing in the theory REQUIRES this age.

You must be talking about classical mechanics which is derived from Newton's laws...I understood it to be predictive physics theory...not sure about relativistic mechanics but quantum mechanics is a purely theoretical science that looks at things on the atomic level.

Quantum mechanics purely theoretical?! where do I even begin about that?....
Quantum mechanics treat individual particles, but any macro object is made of these particles. To be "correct" you need to take into account every particle that makes the "object" in classical mechanics. Given that the typical scale for the number of particles in one gram of "object" is 10^23 particles, good luck with calculating the time it takes a ball to fall to the floor. That huge number of particles is what saves Newtonian mechanics: while each particle may do crazy things, the overall mean behavior is extremely predictable. This is why you can even treat a football as a single object with macro properties derived from the most (read: incredibly) likely behavior for the particles ensemble.

[bozon]

"proof is an impossible goal for empirical science.

Is this a theory of yours or is it a true statment?                      If you have empirical science and you know you have empirical science. How would you need scientific theories?

Theory is the generalization of empirical science. You drop a red rubber ball to the ground and measure the time it takes. Now you know the time it will take if you drop it again in the exact same way - this is the empirical side. Theory comes and claim that there is a force called gravity. It says that this force "pulls the ball to the ground" because all masses are attracted in a certain way, in this case: the mass of the ball is attracted to the mass of the earth. The theory also has some new predictions:
- If the ball was yellow it would drop at the same time.
- If you drop it from four times the hight it will take twice the time to reach the floor.
- etc...
(yes yes, in vacuum for all the smart tulips out there)
These are thing you have not empirically tested and could not know the result in advance without the theory. You can test it now and verify the prediction or rule out the theory.

Then I will tell you that theory is wrong because in the "theory of gravity" (aka general relativity) there is no gravitational force. Find me one person that will use general relativity to calculate the time it takes the apple to fall to the ground and I will show you a masochist.

[palef]

nope - empirical science requires observable phenomena. this falls squarely under metaphysical speculation (I'm assuming that by imaginary friend you mean the celestial teapot )

Good. That's the argument I've used, despite not being a scientist. I would like to point out though that the psycho-social effects of adoring ones celestial teapot are in fact observable phenomena.

[Sonicblu]

Theory is the generalization of empirical science. You drop a red rubber ball to the ground and measure the time it takes. Now you know the time it will take if you drop it again in the exact same way - this is the empirical side. Theory comes and claim that there is a force called gravity. It says that this force "pulls the ball to the ground" because all masses are attracted in a certain way, in this case: the mass of the ball is attracted to the mass of the earth. The theory also has some new predictions:
- If the ball was yellow it would drop at the same time.
- If you drop it from four times the hight it will take twice the time to reach the floor.
- etc...
(yes yes, in vacuum for all the smart tulips out there)
These are thing you have not empirically tested and could not know the result in advance without the theory. You can test it now and verify the prediction or rule out the theory.

/quote]

Sonics Thoughts
Below

 srry it won't let me go outside the quote box for some reason.






There are two types of investigative science one is empirical. What we can detect with the five senses in real time.

the other is called forensic science and it is good enough for a court room. This is where you use emperical observation to piece things together.

Since we weren't there when it happened this debate has to use forensic science.

[Sonicblu]

Theory is the generalization of empirical science. You drop a red rubber ball to the ground and measure the time it takes. Now you know the time it will take if you drop it again in the exact same way - this is the empirical side. Theory comes and claim that there is a force called gravity. It says that this force "pulls the ball to the ground" because all masses are attracted in a certain way, in this case: the mass of the ball is attracted to the mass of the earth. The theory also has some new predictions:
- If the ball was yellow it would drop at the same time.
- If you drop it from four times the hight it will take twice the time to reach the floor.
- etc...
(yes yes, in vacuum for all the smart tulips out there)
These are thing you have not empirically tested and could not know the result in advance without the theory. You can test it now and verify the prediction or rule out the theory.

Then I will tell you that theory is wrong because in the "theory of gravity" (aka general relativity) there is no gravitational force. Find me one person that will use general relativity to calculate the time it takes the apple to fall to the ground and I will show you a masochist.

You completely miss his point. IT is call the law of non-contratiction.    He is stating as fact that "proof is and impossible claim for empirical science"

How does he know this?

It is like saying "All things are relative."  that statement comes with an implied claim that there is no absolute truth or you cant know it.

To be a true statement " All things are relative". Must be an aboslute truth. or he is claiming he knows truth. A person would be using the law of absolute truth to make such a statement. Making a violent contradiction.

Same with the statement that "you cant really know anything for sure"   again How can you make that statement if you cant know anything.

[Sonicblu]

How does adaptation prove evolution?

The examples I see are of adaptation "within" a specises.

I haven't see one example of one species becoming an other one.

Evolutional  theory cant explain the first life from with millions of lines worth of code in its dna. and there is no such thing as simple life form.

The so called simplest life form contains within its DNA millions of specific lines of code to be able to survive. It is called specific complexity. IT cannot survive without a specific intelligent order to it.

Here are only five reasons why natural selection can't do the job.
1.Genetic limits
2. Cyclical change
3. Irreducible complexity
4. Non vialbility of transitional form
5. Molecular isolation

[FireDrgn]

Theory is the generalization of empirical science. You drop a red rubber ball to the ground and measure the time it takes. Now you know the time it will take if you drop it again in the exact same way - this is the empirical side. Theory comes and claim that there is a force called gravity. It says that this force "pulls the ball to the ground" because all masses are attracted in a certain way, in this case: the mass of the ball is attracted to the mass of the earth. The theory also has some new predictions:
- If the ball was yellow it would drop at the same time.
- If you drop it from four times the hight it will take twice the time to reach the floor.
- etc...
(yes yes, in vacuum for all the smart tulips out there)
These are thing you have not empirically tested and could not know the result in advance without the theory. You can test it now and verify the prediction or rule out the theory.

Then I will tell you that theory is wrong because in the "theory of gravity" (aka general relativity) there is no gravitational force. Find me one person that will use general relativity to calculate the time it takes the apple to fall to the ground and I will show you a masochist.

 

Your claim of empirical science ends as soon as you change any information and make a new theory.     A new theory does not negate previous empirical science.

[Angus]

Gyrene: the insects did not exactly "adapt". And yet they did.
A mutilation that probably occurred regularly, - i.e. a black butterfly, - suddenly became a vital factor in survival instead of being either a nuicance or a key to getting killed.
Speaking of those things, I happen to be involved with breeding of cattle and other lifestock. You would be surprised hof much you can also achieve with some 20 generations of breeding. And we do also work with "mutilations" and breed them onwards.
Therefore, I always chuckle at the thought of folks who do not belive in species altering with time. It is basically a total basis in agriculture, so obviously the very simple folks do not come from that part of the human gene pool 

[bozon]

How does adaptation prove evolution?
The examples I see are of adaptation "within" a specises.
I haven't see one example of one species becoming an other one.

A specie does not become another one, it branches off and eventually become a different specie from the other branch. The thing I don't know is when does the specie become incompatible his ancestor - likely a very large number of generations. I doubt you can find two species living at the same time where one could be identified as the ancestor of the other. There are plenty of examples for common ancestors (i.e. branched species).

[bozon]

You completely miss his point. IT is call the law of non-contratiction.    He is stating as fact that "proof is and impossible claim for empirical science"

How does he know this?

He knows this because there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof in the mathematical sense. In math a proof can be traced back to the base definitions and axioms. If all logical statements from this basis are true, the the final one in the series will be true. There is no such absolute basis for science. It does not enjoy the privilege of math being a made-up world where you get to set all the ground rules. Someone else has set the rules and forgot to tell you what they are.

Science branched of from philosophy for a reason.

[AKH]

What, no Gödel?