Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How could you falsify macroevolution?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Your statement that "if an idea is true, there is no need to make it false" is fundamentally apposed to science.

    Science is based upon experimental/observational evidence... which can disprove an idea. Everysingle measurement we make lends evidence for (and possibly against) what the theory is. And scientists must, for science to work, keep an open mind about their theories being wrong.

    The big problems with string theory and the like, is that no experiments can be done, so the theories are not falsifiable. A lot of physicists have problems with string theory for this reason (Really just considering it interesting mathematics).

    The only realm where statements like yours are proper (if you beleive in science), are in realms outside of the realm of science, which are social realms and/or religion.

    Jon Miller
    (Physicist in training)
    Jon Miller-
    I AM.CANADIAN
    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by chegitz guevara
      Originally posted by Odin
      Why, might I ask? It always made sense to me.


      Because I would argue that certain scientific facts aren't falsifiable. Only an idiot would deny that the sun is the center of our solar system. It's absolutely true and impossible to falsify. Under Popper's philosophy, this wouldn't be considered science. It's rather inconceivable that one might someday be able to devise a test to disprove this.
      You don't understand Popper's idea of falsifiability. It's trivial to conceive of a test of heliocentricity - just plot the movements of the major bodies of the solar system against the stelllar background. If the Sun in fact weren't at the centre, this would be seen, and that's all that's required for falsifiability.

      I wouldn't consider myself a strict Popperian, but your attack against Popperianism fails abjectly.
      The same goes for certain elements of math, but no one could seriously claim math isn't scientific.
      Yes one could, and plenty of people do.

      Their argument is simple and quite appealing; science is about observing and explaining the natural world. Maths, dealing with "Platonic" truths and built on axioms without any necessary relation to the natural world, isn't.
      Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

      It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
      The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jon Miller
        Your statement that "if an idea is true, there is no need to make it false" is fundamentally apposed to science.

        Science is based upon experimental/observational evidence... which can disprove an idea. Everysingle measurement we make lends evidence for (and possibly against) what the theory is. And scientists must, for science to work, keep an open mind about their theories being wrong.
        NO its not. Che is correct in my view. There is no NEED to show as untrue any FACT we discover, as long as that fact was discovered through observation and experimentation. Saying that Everest is 40,000 feet tall cause the Monkey God told me is not science, but its easily falsifiable. Telling me Everest is ~30,000 Feet tall based on triangulation from a variety of points and geographic surveys is a scientifically gathered fact, but not "falsifiable", since the height of Everest is just that, a fact (at a certain given point in time).

        Of course scientists need to keep an open mind because that is the whole point of science, that our minds can grasp the "truth", but that is only possible if we are willing to endlessly entertain new sensations, and not base our worldview on dogma created in our own minds, therefore ignoring outside data.
        If you don't like reality, change it! me
        "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
        "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
        "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

        Comment


        • #34
          I always thought that:

          1. An idea can be true or false
          2. An idea can often be proven to be false, but in most cases not proven to be true
          3. Only ideas that can potentially be proven false is scientific
          4. If an idea is not proven false despite potential for being proven false, it is almost as good as it gets. That you use occam's razor to cut out equvalent ideas and you get science out of it.


          That does not mean that an true idea is false, or something crazy like that, which is what some posts suggests. The earth circling the sun is is scientific because it is potentially proven false with certain given observations(for example, the sun is no observed...), not because it is false with current given observations, or any given observations.

          Comment


          • #35
            the triagulation is experimental evidence, which can falsifiy the statement of everest's height

            so yes, Che is wrong

            JM
            Jon Miller-
            I AM.CANADIAN
            GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by GePap


              NO its not. Che is correct in my view. There is no NEED to show as untrue any FACT we discover, as long as that fact was discovered through observation and experimentation. Saying that Everest is 40,000 feet tall cause the Monkey God told me is not science, but its easily falsifiable. Telling me Everest is ~30,000 Feet tall based on triangulation from a variety of points and geographic surveys is a scientifically gathered fact, but not "falsifiable", since the height of Everest is just that, a fact (at a certain given point in time).
              You think Che is right because you don't understand falsifiability. The height of Everest is falsifiable, whether you like it or not.
              Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

              It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
              The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jon Miller
                the triagulation is experimental evidence, which can falsifiy the statement of everest's height

                so yes, Che is wrong

                JM
                At the same point in time, it could not falsify the correct statement of Everest;s height, because such a statement would be unfalsifiable.

                Popper should be shot for using such a stupid word. I guess he did not want to use "verifiable" either. BUt using the negative of verifiable is just as, well, wrong.

                The man should be shot for the missuse of language.
                If you don't like reality, change it! me
                "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                Comment


                • #38
                  He used it perfectly fine. You liberal artsy people just don't get science.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    You may not like the word, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the idea.
                    Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

                    It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
                    The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Kuciwalker
                      He used it perfectly fine. You liberal artsy people just don't get science.
                      We made science you dolt. So stay in your place

                      GEEK.
                      If you don't like reality, change it! me
                      "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                      "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                      "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by GePap
                        We made science you dolt. So stay in your place
                        We took it from you and made it useful. Go back to your ivory tower.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Last Conformist
                          You may not like the word, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the idea.
                          It confuses the idea. Bad philosophical writing there.

                          And yes, I get Popper's 'point'. I don't like how he composes it. Man has no finese.
                          If you don't like reality, change it! me
                          "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                          "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                          "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            ID'ers could prove that ID is falsifiable. For example, they could find a note that said:

                            Dear Losers,

                            God doesn't exist.

                            Yours Truly,

                            Satan
                            “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                            "Capitalism ho!"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Kuciwalker


                              We took it from you and made it useful. Go back to your ivory tower.
                              Better to shoot you down from. Only a fool gives up the high ground. Shows how much you geeks know
                              If you don't like reality, change it! me
                              "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                              "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                              "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Only goes to show you how out of touch you filosofers are. High towers and walls have been obsolete since the cannon.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X