4 ms·
Selectively setting the bar ridiculously high can be an indicator of bias. Actually it's an indicator of skepticism and intellectual honesty, exactly what any
by kirse 17y ago
Selectively setting the bar ridiculously high can be an indicator of bias.
Actually it's an indicator of skepticism and intellectual honesty, exactly what any scientist should have... As Feynman would say, a "kind of leaning over backwards" to show how you might be incorrect.
All quality scientific theories are validated when we have empirical or mathematical proof that demonstrates that a given X process produces Y results and evidence. For example, an explosion of a bomb (X) results in a certain pattern of destruction (Y). We know that upon seeing a certain pattern of destruction (Y) we can infer that it was a bomb explosion because we've seen and witnessed prior explosions (X).
The only way the existence of (Y) can logically infer the existence of (X) is if we've previously tested and validated that X indeed produces Y.
Is it so much to ask that I have X process demonstrated before I truly believe the theoretical assertation that Y evidence really indicates the existence of X process?
Is that not what real science is about, forming theories and then empirically validating whether or not X indeed produces Y as we claim is does?
- swombat 17y agoI gather the fossil record isn't good enough for you then?
- kirse 17y agoI don't get how hard this is for people to logically grasp. Scientific conjecture doesn't logically hold water until we stop assuming that X->Y and actually empirically show or mathematically demonstrate that X->Y. In physics we have equations like E=mc^2 which are constantly tested and validated. In chemistry we have repeated and empirically validated experiments that show how adding a catalyst to a reaction will speed it up. In biology we have demonstrated and visible results of how different types of light affect plant growth. In electronics we repeatedly validate that V indeed equals I times R. And the list goes on... Don't you get it? X process is repeatedly tested and validated to produce Y results. That's how quality science works. I don't care if you have a whole mountain of what you claim is Y "evidence", if you can't repeatedly demonstrate and validate the assertion that X process produces Y results then it doesn't matter how much "evidence" there is, there is no true logical basis to claim that Y infers an X until you have demonstrated X->Y. Pardon my skepticism.
- TheSOB88 17y agoWhy are you so opposed to evidence that did not originate in a laboratory? The fossil record shows that differentiation and evolution has occurred quite a number of times. Just because we weren't in control of it doesn't mean it doesn't hold weight. Besides, what other explanation do you have for the fossil record?
- bena 17y agoSkepticism isn't ignoring evidence; it's doubting that which has no evidence yet. But if you want experimental results concerning evolution: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molec...
- kirse 17y agoI think it's hilarious how your article sums up in two sentences exactly what I've been trying to say in 1,000+ words in these comments and succinctly summarizes why I still remain justly skeptical: Moreover, efforts to create more life in the labs will eventually hit a philosophical wall, not a technical one. "If somebody makes something great in the lab, it's fantastic. But really the origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we're never going to be able to witness and verify," he says.
- whughes 17y agoIt can't be 100% verified, but that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution holds no water. Being "skeptical" doesn't mean ignoring the evidence for things you don't like. It's the most likely explanation at the moment, backed up by evidence and the experiments we can do. Thus, for the time being, we accept it. It's not a tablet handed down by God, but it's not ignorable just because we're not cocksure.
- billswift 17y agoThat is known as the "argument from ignorance" - since we don't know for certain, anything is equally likely.
- TheSOB88 17y agoGuys, come on. You'll never convince anybody with your argumentative tones. Speak to people as if they were people. Edit: Shit, mine look worse. Retrieve palm, insert face.
- arakyd 17y agoYour conception of science is twisted and narrow, your bomb example is a classic modus moron, and you would rather make a grand display of your ignorance than take a few minutes to Google up the sort of evidence for evolution that you claim doesn't exist. Let us hope that you are troll sir, for otherwise we must conclude that you are an idiot.
- kirse 17y agoTell me then, where are the observations that form the scientific argument for Macro Evolution? Here, let me link you to Science 101 so I can help your tiny brain understand this: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_07 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_07 See that little formula? Idea + Expectations + Observations = Scientific Argument 1. We have the scientific idea - Macro evolution over 4+ bn years 2. We have the expectations (aka what you call circumstantial "evidence") - fossil record and a whole mountain of other expectations. 3. So where exactly are the observations that confirm this idea produces our expectations? Nowhere. You can't observe Macro evolution in action. All that exists is a mountain of circumstantial expectations with no observations. Two-thirds of a scientific argument doesn't equal a scientific argument, moron. It certainly must seem like trolling when you don't even understand the process by which scientific arguments are validated.
- arakyd 17y agoI love how you classify the fossil record as "expectations." New species appear in the historical record, complete with transitional forms. What's your explanation? Repeated acts of special creation? Look, the reason I didn't link any more observations of "macro" evolution is because examples have already been linked (and you've ignored them), and because you seem to think that you have logical grounds for dismissing all evidence while clearly demonstrating that you do not understand either basic logic or the scientific method. Seriously, google "modus moron" and fix your shit if you don't want to come across like an ignorant creationist troll. I suspect that your real complaint isn't based on anything that is clearly evident from what you have posted so far and that pointing you at stuff you could easily find for yourself if you were genuinely curious is a waste of time. But in case I'm wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html