Here’s a perfect example. In comments on this post, I pointed out that T-Stone hasn’t ever responded to my challenge that he prove evolution from the fossil record.
T-Stone said (all of T-Stone's comments will be in bold to differentiate between what he said and my responses):
Still waiting for your answer about whether T and F stand as scientific theories in the syllogism you gave.
(BTW: The syllogism is located in comments on this post).
This doesn't say much for your intelligence, T-Stone, since I've already answered in the very comments you reference. I said:
The point is that my "observation" about gravity (which was used as an illustration, not like I actually believe in "Object X") is identical in structure to the "observations" provided by Newton. That is the point.
Thus, if you agree that Newton's laws of motion are scientific theory, then so too is my hypothetical gravity claim.
And yes, F is a theory too, as I said in the comments:
In other words, if you say that observations are falsifiers, the observations themselves must be expressed in the form of a theory. If you say, "I have observed X to be the case" that is the same thing as saying, "I theorize that X is the case."
Continuing, T-Stone said:
Still waiting for your response on what you would expect for a review of the fossil evidence.
Again, I already told you in those very comments:
By the way, I also note that T-Stone has still not provided us with proof from the fossil record of evolution (proof including, as I stated many times already, the mechanism of evolution, i.e. mutation followed by natural selection).
My comments referred to my previous comments on this post where I said:
Evolution, on the other hand, needs a process by which it can function (genetic mutation followed by natural selection). Mutations cannot be demonstrated by fossils since mutations require looking at DNA. Likewise, natural selection cannot be demonstrated by the fossil record either (except when natural selection is taken in its completely irrelevant tautological sense).
And:
Again, you cannot prove a mechanism for evolution from the fossil bed (natural selection using genetic mutations). All you can prove is that there were organisms that have similar-looking physical structures. But similar-looking physical structures do not prove evolution, for they do not address genetic mutations (something fossils do no preserve in the first place) nor natural selection (which is impossible to "store" in a fossil).
Again, I challenge you to "defeat" this claim. Prove evolution by using fossils alone. Prove linear descent with genetic mutation followed by natural selection.
And:
Notice that T-Stone has not done what I asked him to do. I asked him to demonstrate evolution from the fossil record. I even specifically stated the exact problem he would face--the fact that the fossil record cannot demonstrate a mechanism for evolution (genetic mutation followed by natural selection).
Now all I can say in response to this, T-Stone, is only a complete freaking IDIOT would still be "waiting" for me to explain what I'm looking for.
Look, I know you're not one to read other people's posts and all...but if you're going to post your disagreements and expect to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to do the legwork and actually read what I wrote.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI've not got time for a full treatment on this now, but let's get this "theory" idea square. These are, if you'd like, just "yes" or "no" questions, so it shouldn't take long to respond.
You said previously that:
T = "Any object that is above ground will, when dropped, fall to the ground."
and
F = "'Object X, when dropped, does not fall to the ground' falsifies T."
Now, do you claim that T and F are both scientific theories? It seems from the next line after the quote above, you do:
. The statement "Object X, when dropped, does not fall to the ground" is itself a theory.
If that's the case, then, as I asked before, what does T or F, *explain*? If you remember, the primary requirement (but not the only requirement) for a theory is that is provide an explanation or a model for physical phenomena.
Given what you've got here, I think you are confused about what scientific theories are, and how they work. This will be important to hammer out if you are going to review fossil evidence (or any other evidence) in evaluating evolution, or any other theory.
As I said previously, Newton's theory of gravity provided one of the most important explanations we've ever had in terms of explaining physically phenomena: mass attracts mass according to the inverse-square Law. That explains why a rock drops to the ground from your hand, why the earth goes around the sun, and an innumerable number of other experiences (pick up your computer mouse and drop it to the desk -- yet another phenomenon that can be explained by Newton's gravitational theory.
Your T and F couldn't be more different. They explain nothing, and for that reason do not qualify as scientific theories (among others). So, having said that, I'd just like to make sure I understand that you still stand by your claim that T and F are scientific theories. If you're going to hope to make progress with an evaluation of evolution via fossil evidence, we'll need to get this straight. It's a fools' errand for me to demonstrate scientific points if this is how you are conceptualizing scientific inquiry.
I'd appreciate your clear affirmation of whether T and F as you've stated them are scientific theories. If you affirm such, then my question will be "what do they explain, phenomenologically?"
Thanks,
-Touchstone
T-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
If that's the case, then, as I asked before, what does T or F, *explain*?
---
I'm no longer impressed by your ability to gouge out your own eyes in order to not read someone's statements, T-Stone.
It explains exactly what it says it explains. Objects that are above ground fall to the ground when dropped.
You say this "explains nothing"...yet EVERY theory leaves gaps in explanation. For instance, you said:
---
As I said previously, Newton's theory of gravity provided one of the most important explanations we've ever had in terms of explaining physically phenomena: mass attracts mass according to the inverse-square Law.
---
I can respond: why? Why does mass attract mass? Newton doesn't explain this. He simply asserts his observation. Therefore, it's not a scientific theory according to you.
But here's the bottom line, T-Stone. You don't get to decide what is a scientific theory and what isn't. You aren't the basis. Indeed, your criteria for establishing what is scientific or not is, and always has been, an ad hoc critera designed solely to reject anything that I say. This is your motivating factor, to automatically disqualify any statement I make.
But that's not science. That's your personal vendetta.
I've already demonstrated my hypothetical theory is identical in structure to Newton's laws of motion. Neither "explain" anything. They're observations.
My point still stands, however. Observations must be stated in the form of theories. They must be repeatable or they are worthless as observations. As such, saying, "I observed X doing Y" is identical to giving a theory that "X does action Y."
Again, I've already explained this to you. And if you want to use this as a cop-out to avoid the fact that you cannot demonstrate evolution from the fossil record, feel free. But everyone will know it's a cop-out.
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/kurt/Astronomy110G/Lectures/Origins-I.pdf
ReplyDeletePeter,
I'm no longer impressed by your ability to gouge out your own eyes in order to not read someone's statements, T-Stone.
It explains exactly what it says it explains. Objects that are above ground fall to the ground when dropped.
That's an *observation*, Peter. An explanation is a (set of)reason(s) something happens, and an observation is just the *affirmation* that something happened. If "a rock released from my hand falls to the gorund" is a scientific theory, because, um, "it explains what it explains", then *anything* we observe is a scientific theory!
"I stubbed my toe on the stair."
Scientific Theory? Yes, apparently, since it "explains what it explains".
"My dog ate a cookie I dropped on the floor"
Scientific Theory? Yes, apparently, since it "explains what it explains".
"The lamp on my desk hasn't moved in the last 10 minutes."
Scientific Theory? Yes, apparently, since it "explains what it explains".
Etc.
You have confused observations and theories, Peter.
You say this "explains nothing"...yet EVERY theory leaves gaps in explanation. For instance, you said:
---
As I said previously, Newton's theory of gravity provided one of the most important explanations we've ever had in terms of explaining physically phenomena: mass attracts mass according to the inverse-square Law.
---
I can respond: why? Why does mass attract mass? Newton doesn't explain this. He simply asserts his observation. Therefore, it's not a scientific theory according to you.
If you read my previous comments, I explained that a theory needn't (can't) provide *ultimate* explanations. But it *can* provide an explanation, nonetheless. Newton's gravitational theory, for example, doesn't explain *why* mass attracts mass in a thorough sense, but it *does* explain why a rock released from my hand would fall to the ground *BEYOND* the simple observation of said event.
So a theory advances our understanding of the way the world works in terms of physical phenomena. It need not be an ultimate explanation, but it should be *an* explanation. So Newton's theory *does* qualify, as it did and does provide an explanation that advances our knowledge of how the universe works in terms of physical phenomena. After learning of Newton's theory, and investigator could apply Newton's explanation of why a rock dropped to the ground when released from the hand, and conclude that the earth is going around the sun according to the same principle -- mass attracts mass according to Inverse-Square laws.
This is what T or F cannot do. They cannot explain a simple observation, but will simply restate it.
But here's the bottom line, T-Stone. You don't get to decide what is a scientific theory and what isn't. You aren't the basis. Indeed, your criteria for establishing what is scientific or not is, and always has been, an ad hoc critera designed solely to reject anything that I say. This is your motivating factor, to automatically disqualify any statement I make.
Nah, I'm just familiar with how science is practiced. I didn't invent any of this stuff. It's basic science 101, Peter.
Here's a small excerpt from this page at the University of Rochester called "Introduction to the Scientific Method":
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
(emphasis mine)
Got that, Peter? "explain the phenomena", "causal mechanism". Your T and F are "explanation free" and "causal mechanism free". Unless you think I somehow have conspired with the University of Rochester to make you look bad, this is just a page that shows how science works. I'm not inventing anything here, but am just going by the conventions that exist out there in the science community.
From a page at the University of California at Riverside on the scientific method called "What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?":
In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.
(emphasis mine).
Explains, Peter. Also note the "vague and fuzzy" comment about the popular usage of "theory". Sounds a lot like this from you in your post above
If you say, "I have observed X to be the case" that is the same thing as saying, "I theorize that X is the case."
You've been coming at this topic thinking that the popular conception of the word "theory" was the same as the scientific. That would explain your comment above, which is the kind of usage the writer her from UC-R is talking about.
From the University of Cincinnati - Clermont College, this page on "The Scientific Method":
Hypothesis:
This is a tentative answer to the question: a testable explanation for what was observed. The scientist tries to explain what caused what was observed.
and
In a cause and effect relationship, what you observe is the effect, and hypotheses are possible causes. A generalization based on inductive reasoning is not a hypothesis. An hypothesis is not an observation, rather, a tentative explanation for the observation. For example, I might observe the effect that my throat is sore. Then I might form hypotheses as to the cause of that sore throat, including a bacterial infection, a viral infection, or screaming too much at a ball game.
Explanation. Causes posited to account for effect. This is what scientific theories do, Peter.
But that's not science. That's your personal vendetta.
The facts say otherwise, Peter. Do we need to look at more examples that have nothing to do with me?
I've already demonstrated my hypothetical theory is identical in structure to Newton's laws of motion. Neither "explain" anything. They're observations.
My point still stands, however. Observations must be stated in the form of theories. They must be repeatable or they are worthless as observations. As such, saying, "I observed X doing Y" is identical to giving a theory that "X does action Y."
Observations are not theories, Peter. And now you are mixing in *laws*, which are not theories either. Here's a good explanation from this page on "Scientific Law and Theories" from a faculty member at Kennesaw State:
LAW
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
So a law is a generalization based on our observations, observations which without exception accord with the law. Read the next definition on the page, and you will see -- again -- the idea that a theory (as a opposed to law) is what provides *explanation* for phenomena.
Again, I've already explained this to you. And if you want to use this as a cop-out to avoid the fact that you cannot demonstrate evolution from the fossil record, feel free. But everyone will know it's a cop-out.
What would you consider to be the criteria for demonstrating that, Peter? You are aware that evolution , from Darwin on down, has *relied* on fossils, but is not constrained to the fossil record. Given that, are you expecting to evaluate *support* for evolution in the fossil record, or do you suppose that evolution as a whole is demonstrated from the fossil record alone?
If it's the latter, you are again confused. If it is the former, then what criterion do you have for your evaluation of the fossil support for evolution? Or, simply, what is the success criteria for such an endeavor?
-Touchstone
T-Stone,
ReplyDeleteNo time today to give this more than a quick skim and one quick observation. So you argue here via the "copy-and-paste" method... that strikes me as quite lazy T-Stone.
My previous re-quotation of T-Stone aside, one thing that the invenerable pebbleman keeps forgetting is that the example of Newton I gave was not Newton's gravitational theory at all.
ReplyDeleteIt was inertia. As I originally said:
---BEGIN LONG NESTED QUOTE---
Under such criteria, I have to point out that the following is NOT scientific:
=====
1. A particle not subjected to external forces remains at rest or moves with constant speed in a straight line..
2. The acceleration of a particle is directly proportional to the resultant external force acting on the particle and is inversely proportional to the mass of the particle.
3. If two particles interact, the force exerted by the first particle on the second particle (called the action force) is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force exerted by the second particle on the first particle (called the reaction force).
=====
Yup, those don't explain anything. At best, it's just "observational evidence." After all, the above doesn't tell us WHY any of that happens. It doesn't explain "anything" specifically.
Thank God we have Touchstone here to separate the real scientists from those hacks like Isaac Newton.
---END LONG NESTED QUOTE---
(As an aside, I wonder if copying and pasting my own words that T-Stone has already ignored qualifies as my being lazy in T-Stone's universe.)
In any case, I do have to point out that as fun as this conversation is, it's still just T-Stone's method of not dealing with the issue at hand (which is, of course, his inability to demonstrate evolution (specifically mutation followed by natural selection--but hey, at this point I'd settle for even ONE of those two things!) from the fossil record).