3 ms·
I 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 em
by kirse 17y ago
I 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.
- nollidge 17y agoYeah, and we have plate tectonics which explains... oh, geez, I guess nothing, since we can't fit an entire tectonic plate into a lab in order to repeatedly test it. Well at least we know that the planet's magnetic field is produced by aligned iron molecules in the core since... Well shit, I guess we can't fit a planetary core in the lab. Ok, I've got one: we know that the sun is a nuclear furnace, fusing hydrogen into helium because... um... Well, I guess you're right. We can't know anything by repeated inference. I sure hope the sun comes up tomorrow.