Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Leaked To Pirates By Microsoft?
nandemoari writes "The beta version of Windows 7 has been widely distributed through torrents and other file sharing systems. But now some commentators claim Microsoft deliberately allowed the package to get into the hands of pirates. 'I'm not being critical here, as some Microsoft Watch commenters will surely claim. It's rather smart marketing. Microsoft fills a big news void with something bloggers and journalists will write about. The suspense of stealth downloads from torrents and races to post the best screenshots first make the Windows 7 leak buzz all the more exciting. For other people, there is delight in seeing Microsoft squirm because Seven leaked early. Not that I see much squirming going on.'"
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.
It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.
So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If som
I just heard the news on talk radio. Jett Travolta, son of scientologist/actor John Travolta, was found dead this morning at his Bahamas hotel. No other information was available. Even if you don't think scientology sucks, you probably agree that Battlfield earth was a festering pile of shit. Let's hope he anna nicoles himself in a couple weeks.
and the universe's biggest douche award goes to the parent. congratulations, now get off the internet and go inbreed with the rest of your racist family.
Lets post all the "Stayin Alive" jokes under this thread...
Then how come I hear everyone say things like "they're all pink on the inside"? They're talking about watermelons, right?
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls but...
In conclusion, [if X then evolution is wrong and therefore] The Bible is correct...This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.
[Edited for brevity and clarity]
Firstly, Darwin was very happy for people to try and disprove his theory in any way possible. Unfortunately the genetic theory and chemical know-how necessary to conduct your experiment weren't available in Victorian England. Besides, evolution doesn't propose an increase in traits, but an increase in adaption to a specific environment or ecosystem niche. The virus which gives you the common cold is no 'more' or 'less' evolved than you or me.
Secondly, your argument is built on a flawed premise:
1) Two species don't share a common ancestor
therefore
2) Evolution is false
therefore
3) The Bible is correct
The first step is questionable, but let's fly with it. It's the step from 2->3 that's the problem. Knowledge that the theory of evolution is wrong only tells us that evolution is wrong. Nothing further can be concluded.
To re-phrase your argument into a car analogy
1)I have a photo showing that your car is not red
therefore
2)My theory that your car is red is not true
therefore
3)Your car is green.
As you can see, this final statement is a bit of a logical leap.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Zune is now a meme.
And yet, Milhouse still isn't.