A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 25th, 2017, 11:57 pm 

Gosh, can't wait to hear what you make up now. Better than Korean soap operas, I tell ya.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 25th, 2017, 11:58 pm 

NoShips » June 25th, 2017, 8:50 pm wrote:
Sivad » June 26th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:
It's a mechanism.


Cool.

Q1: Is it a law?

Q2: Is it a force?

Q3: How da fook do you know?


It's a mechanism, that which can't hang, fookin dies. It's pretty straightforward. It just makes sense.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 12:01 am 

The court will wait for an answer...

You'll get a poke if I don't get a reply in 5 mins. LOL
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 12:03 am 

You guys might not believe this, but I am genuinely interested in these issues.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 12:06 am 

A quote that might help.





"Reflections on the demands of mathematical analysis have not, however, addressed all the ambiguities latent in the term 'natural selection'. A quite general issue has still received no canonical treatment : what kind of a thing is natural selection, anyway? A law, a principle, a force, a cause, an agent, or all or some of these? The view that natural selection is a law has been countered with the view that it is a principle, while that conclusion has been countered in turn by an insistence that it is neither (Reed, 1981; Byerly, 1983; Hodge, 1987b).

Many textbooks talk of selection as a force, and the notion that evolutionary theory is a theory of forces has been defended explicitly (Sober, 1984a). However, if natural selection is in some serious sense a force, then one might expect a close analogue to mass in the theory of this force. But no plausible analogue for mass seems identifiable (Endler, 1986). A better tack may be to consider natural selection simply as a causal process and to define this process by specifying the conditions causally necessary and sufficient for its occurrence.

A definition of natural selection as a cause is appropriate because evolutionary biologists today are still concerned, no less than Darwin was, with the definitional and evidential challenges set by the old (eighteenth-century) 'vera causa' ideal for all physical science: namely, defining a cause and then marshaling independent, empirical, evidential cases for the existence of that cause and for its adequacy and its responsibility for the effects it is taken to explain. It is, after all, in meeting these last three evidential challenges that upholders of the theory of natural selection can meet the old jibe that their theory is somehow a tautologous truism rather than an informative claim about the way the world works (Sober, 1984a; Hodge, 1987b, 1989).

-- M. J. S. Hodge

My advice: he/she sounds like a philosopher. Shoot the bitch.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 12:09 am 

Did you know that the first ever interracial kiss on TV was Captain Kirk and Ltnt Uhura?

The first SPCF kiss between a philosopher and a scientist will be me and Ken. Stay tuned.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 12:11 am 

Old jibe? It's back, baby.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 12:41 am 

I'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, shortsighted, narrowminded laboratory assistants.

I've had enough of reading things by neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed brains in vats.

No short-haired, yellow-bellied son of tricky-Dicky is gonna soft soap me.


Erm, hope everyone realizes my only intention is to make you giggle. (keeps my mind off suicide)

BiV knows I admire him enormously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDDJeM5R4PM

Money for dope? You smoke this shit to escape from reality? I am reality. - yes, Barnes again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTyJ3QruoaM

"NoShips has been banned seven times. He ain't dead. That mean anything to you? NoShips ain't meant to die. The only thing that can kill NoShips is NoShips."

Amen
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 26th, 2017, 12:49 am 

"their theory is somehow a tautologous truism rather than an informative claim about the way the world works"

Doesn't it make sense that maladaption would be filtered out? Even without evolution some critters are just not long for this world. Think of all the people in the last 6,000 years of creation that have failed to pass along their genes , there's gotta be a lot of familial lines that have just dead-ended.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 1:02 am 

Sivad » June 26th, 2017, 1:49 pm wrote:"their theory is somehow a tautologous truism rather than an informative claim about the way the world works"

Doesn't it make sense that maladaption would be filtered out? Even without evolution some critters are just not long for this world. Think of all the people in the last 6,000 years of creation that have failed to pass along their genes , there's gotta be a lot of familial lines that have just dead-ended.


It certainly does. How could it not? The losers win?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 1:03 am 

The smartest biologists understand this!!

No one listens
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby TheVat on June 26th, 2017, 1:10 am 

NoShips » June 25th, 2017, 9:09 pm wrote:Did you know that the first ever interracial kiss on TV was Captain Kirk and Ltnt Uhura?

The first SPCF kiss between a philosopher and a scientist will be me and Ken. Stay tuned.


I knew about Kirk and Uhura. Psychokinetic immortals made them do it, all registered geeks know this.

LoL.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 1:11 am 

Hmm, I'd take Uhura any day.

But try to stay on topic.

Tee hee.

You're up late tonight?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 1:12 am 

Yes, if it's a reference you want (what do doctors call it again?) try my boobs thread.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby TheVat on June 26th, 2017, 1:25 am 

Wife is doing something OCD in the bedroom and snarls at me when I approach. Psychokinetic immortals couldn't make me go in there. It is late here. Being in the living room is an adaptive strategy. Staying alive is a causal process, not a force. Arrow of time at the macro level, baby. All you need is thermodynamics and ET works sufficiently well. But that can always change. It's not a single proposition, but a fat bundle of inferences. Pull out a couple sticks, it probably won't collapse. Like mahjong.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 1:27 am 

Hmm, have you tried subduing her with sellotape? Otherwise, I dunno much about women.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 1:28 am 

My work here is far too important. Tee hee.

Hurry back after the woman and sleep thing. I'll be here (heart is twitching though, bad news I tell ya)
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:12 pm 

Sivad » June 26th, 2017, 1:49 pm wrote:
Doesn't it make sense that maladaption would be filtered out? Even without evolution some critters are just not long for this world. Think of all the people in the last 6,000 years of creation that have failed to pass along their genes , there's gotta be a lot of familial lines that have just dead-ended.


Maladaption just is that which is filtered out. If it's not filtered out, it's not maladaption. It's adaption.

Oh gosh. Sometimes I feel the whole world is mad. I don't mind as long as you keep the noise down.

Your project for today is to find a non-filtered maladaption. And stop staring. I blush easily.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:13 pm 

Yes, I'd like my Nobel prize now.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan
RoccoR liked this post


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:17 pm 

I posted somewhere else (Lomax might remember) a few quotes from the cleverest biologists who see this. Natural selection cannot fail to be true (given its presuppositions). There is no possible world where the unfit outdo the fit. Coz then they wouldn't be unfit. They'd be fit.

I know this. I travel a lot.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:19 pm 

Braininvat » June 26th, 2017, 2:25 pm wrote:Wife is doing something OCD in the bedroom and snarls at me when I approach. Psychokinetic immortals couldn't make me go in there. It is late here. Being in the living room is an adaptive strategy. Staying alive is a causal process, not a force. Arrow of time at the macro level, baby. All you need is thermodynamics and ET works sufficiently well. But that can always change. It's not a single proposition, but a fat bundle of inferences. Pull out a couple sticks, it probably won't collapse. Like mahjong.


*giggle*

Well stand up for yourself. Are you a man or a moderator?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:21 pm 

Hey BiV. Yes, I do read your posts. You pack more cleverness in a few sentences than something with no cleverness does.You look fit.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:25 pm 

Hmm, you mentioned causes. Wanna get really confused? Noships can help.

Show me how this all works. >>> equals causation and Ma, she's making eyes at me.

traits >>>> fitness >>> reproductive success?

Or what?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:27 pm 

You see. David Stove gets this. Told ya he was superclever. No one ever listens. Sigh.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:30 pm 

SciameriKen » June 26th, 2017, 11:41 am wrote: Why don't you gain a better understanding of evolutionary theory if your intent is to challenge it publicly.

The things I have to deal with. Ken, explain the causal relationship (if there is one) between traits, fitness, and reproductive success.

And stop calling me a midget.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:34 pm 

Let me get you started.

"I have nice traits therefore I'm fit." (i.e. traits cause fitness)

or

"I have nice traits. That's what fitness is, dumbass!!" (i.e. traits are fitness)

Tee hee

Or something else?
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 26th, 2017, 6:41 pm 

I have been consistently treated as an ignorant hillbilly since joining SPCF, and just want to say thanks.
User avatar
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Positor on June 26th, 2017, 8:09 pm 

NoShips » June 26th, 2017, 11:17 pm wrote:Natural selection cannot fail to be true (given its presuppositions). There is no possible world where the unfit outdo the fit. Coz then they wouldn't be unfit. They'd be fit.

How, then, can creationists rationally deny the truth of natural selection? Are they denying a tautology?

It may be said that a creationist only accepts natural selection as a means of variation within a species, whereas an evolutionist believes that natural selection can create new species (something that the creationist thinks only God can do). But if so, evolution involves more than a mere tautology; it claims something informative.

We could also argue that "the fit outdo the unfit" is not a tautology, since there are possible worlds in which God intervenes miraculously to preserve species that are unfit to survive naturally. (It would be greatly stretching the meaning of "fit" to include "apt to be saved by God when all else fails".)
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
NoShips liked this post


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby TheVat on June 26th, 2017, 8:20 pm 

I have been consistently treated as an ignorant hillbilly since joining SPCF, and just want to say thanks.




No you haven't. Your explorations have had free reign here and you're allowed to drink and talk about boobs and meander through all sorts of side issues in your quest for chinks in the armor of science. You're probably more widely read on metascience than any other member, except maybe Owleye and he's currently in the Bardo and not coming back. If anyone is treating you like a hillbilly, I will personally force them to watch the "squeal lahk a pig!" scene in "Deliverance" with eyelids taped open. What I think happened is you wore Ken out with your brand of semantic prestidigitation. And I am having moments of fatigue, too. We Americans are a simple folk, with our corncob pipes and banjos, and we like nice concrete examples of scientific blunders and epistemological turpitude. Nobody in evolutionary biology, AFAIK, talks about "nice" traits. No more of this fancy jargon, man!

Anyway, Positor has arrived, and is clearly a city slicker who knows how to crack open tthat whole tautology nut and keep fitness respectable.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
NoShips liked this post


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby SciameriKen on June 26th, 2017, 8:42 pm 

Sealioning! I finally remember the term!!
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests