"Evolutionists" don't have an agenda, unless you count science as an "agenda."
Well, some evolutionists have an agenda. For example, Ernst Haeckel had one. Following his agenda, he copied some illustrations of embryos and claimed them to be of different species, and he fraudulently modified the illustrations of others in order to support his idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. See, for example http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Hae ckel.html.
We don't consider science to be subject to public policy, and as such, laymen don't get a vote.
We? Do I understand you claim to be an evolutionist? And you get a vote? And I don't get a vote? Because I'm not an evolutioninst?
That absolutely has everything to do with embryonic development which is known to mirror vertebrate evolution, at least to those who follow science.
It's not known to those who follow science as recently as 1874. Because it was on that date that Wilhelm His showed Haeckels work to be fraudulent. Nor to those who have followed science as recently as 1921 when the recapitulition theory was refuted in a paper by Walter Garstang. Nor to those who have followed it as recently as 1956 when the introdution to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species included the fact of Haeckel's fraud in the introduction.
Don't fall off the edge of the flat earth on your way out the door.
Newton's theory wasn't disproven by Einstein. It was disproven much earlier by the guys who noticed that Mercury's orbit didn't obey Newton's laws. Einstein's just the guy who came up with a better explanation; one that was falsifiable and coudl be used to make predictions.
True, but not germane. (Actually I think Mercury's motion was discovered after Einstein's theory of relativity, but that's not germane either.)
You know, two properties ID "theory" doesn't have.
That's a truly breathtaking distortion of my position. Bravo. According to this, you would have me teaching astrology and phrenology in the science classroom as well, for the simple reason that they are also falsifiable.
What I didn't mention earlier (because, honestly, I didn't think I needed to...I assumed it was a given), was that for a scientific theory to be taken seriously, it must be (a) falsifiable, and (b) not falsified as well.
That may have been what you meant, but it's certainly not what you said. I prefer not to make unnecessary assumptions about the arguments put forth by others, a compunction under which you appear not to labor.
But now in addition to impuning meanings I did not imply, you ignore arguments I have made. Newtonian physics has been falsified. Would you have it that Newtonian physics should not be taught?
Here's the problem, though. Showing a claim made by ID false does not falsify the theory, because IDers can always retreat to the unassailable notion that 'God made it that way'. Real scientific disciplines do not have that luxury.
On the contrary. Ad Hoc Rescue has been attempted for scientific theories since time immemorial. To be scientific an endeavour should be amenable to the scientific method.
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.
I claim that Intelligent Design is amenable to all four, and thus should be taught. (Actually I'm not sure whether it should be taught or not, but for the sake of argument...) That was your claim initially, but now you seem to have a modified claim that only that subset of scientific endeavour should be that that has not been falsified. I suspect that now you will want to change your claim again in some manner that includes Newtonian physics, but I'll wait to hear what you have to say before I make any conclusions. Perhaps you want to claim that only serious scientific theories should be taught, in which case I would like to hear the definition of serious scientific theories. I would also like to know your opinion on "all true Scotsmen."
Physicists aren't necessarily falling all over themselves to "disprove" relativity.
That's not my observation. My observation is that the physicist who disproves relativity will be famous, receive loads of grants and accolades, and have units of measure named after him. I've seen television interviews of physicists who have devoted their life's work toward disproving the theory of relativity.
I wanted to address one other part of your other posts. Evolution is a theory of change over time in species. It is not a theory of abiogenesis. The beginnings of life are seperate theories, and while they are obviously linked with evolution one is not required for the other to be correct.
Ah! Good! We're in agreement then.
Perhaps it is intelligent design that started evolution, perhaps it was abiogenesis, perhaps it was something else.
You seem to be using "abiogenesis" differently than I am. I take abiogenesis to me "life beginning from non-life." You seem to mean "life beginning from non-life exclusively through random processes."
Scientifically, it still does not matter - abiogenesis, until disproved with something other than "well, that seems convienent, so it had to be a creator", will be the only testable theory, and therefor the only useful one to science.
This and other reasonings that somehow hint at intelligent designers, fall under the anthropic principle. The physical realm around us will by necessity seem perfectly fine-tuned to support us, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to examine it. And if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory holds true, then there exists an infinite number of universes, of which an infinite number is incapable of supporting our kind of life.
The anthropic principle is a principle that explains nothing at all. It is non-falsifiable, and therefore not science. I'm asking why we exist, and you answer by saying, "given that we exist, things will look this way." I'm asking why isn't it the case that we don't exist at all? Especially given the fact (if fact it be) that it's 10^43 time more likely that we not exist.
But let me ask you this question--is it true that you have postulated the existence of an infinite number of things that we can never observe as a way of explaining away one thing that we might possibly observe some day?
The fact that the Weak Anthropic Principle is true (and it can't help being true...it's a tautology) does not mean that the Strong Anthropic Principle is true. You'll need to do better than that.
But I'm not trying to prove Intellient Design. I'm trying to prove Intelligent Design is falsifiable. If the proportion of the strong to weak force can be other than they are, then that would tend to disprove Intelligent Design. Therefore Intelligent Design makes a prediction that is testable. Therefore Intelligent Design is a science. Therefore Intelligent Design should be taught in school (by your argument. I make no claim either way.)
In fact all three of your other arguments, like this one, amount to a claim that the claims made by Intelligent Design are false. That being the case, Intelligent Design is falsifiable, and you have made my argument for me.
I'm also sorry you percieve those who do not abandon rationality in favor of 'God did it' at the slightest pretext as 'close minded'.
Your statement has the flavor of eight-year-olds arguing. "I'm sorry you're such a stupid-head." "Yeah, I'm sorry you're such a dip weed." Yet another example of pre-judging the issue.
Your definition of the word theory is disingenuous in the extreme...and sadly, par for the course for ID proponents.
Our definitions are exactly equivalent except for your defintion 3 (about which more anon.) That being the case, your definition is disingenuous and, sadly, par for the course for...whatever you are."
The disadvantage of your definition 3 is it disallows one to speak of outmoded or disproven theories, like the phlogiston theory of fire. By your definition 3, all theories are probable.
It would "tend" to falsify ID? I don't know what you meant by that, but it wouldn't be true that such an experiment would falsify ID.
Because when one reasons about the physical sciences one uses inductive reasoning. If this bacterium is susceptable to penicillin and that bacterium is susceptable to penicillin and the other bacterium is susceptable to penicillin, maybe all bacteria are susceptable to penicillin. On the other hand, maybe they were susceptible to the alcohol used to suspend the penicillin and drowned. (I'm sorry. I'm no expert in the biological sciences, so maybe bacteria aren't susceptible to alcohol. It's not germain to the argument I present.) It's only in the mathematical sciences that we can prove, given certain axioms and methods of inference, that for examle there is no largest prime number.
Believers in ID did not become so by looking at the strong and weak nuclear forces.
So you believe that a statement is true or false depending on how the proponents of the statement came to examine it? If I could give you one example of a person who believes Intelligent Design by examining the strong and weak nuclear forces, would you then come to believe Intelligent Design?
The suggestion that a single development (in an area of physics that most of these people don't even know about) could change their minds is either naive or dishonest.
Who has made such a suggestion?
The only way to disprove ID is to solve all of the unknowns in science, to such a degree that ID believers can no longer quibble over the definition of the word "theory". Personally I don't believe that's possible.
I note that the way Newtonian physics was disproved was through Einstein's theory of relativity (The General one, I think, but I'm not certain.) I note that scores of physicists are trying to disprove the theory of relativity at this moment. Would you similarly claim that the only way to disprove Einstein's general theory of relativity is to solve all the unknowns in science to such a degree that ToR believers can no longer quibble over the definition of the word "theory?" If not, why not?
Care to explain how? Care to give just one example of an experiment that can be performed to falsify the 'theory' of Intelligent Design?
One idea posited by Intelligent Design is that the strong and weak nuclear forces are finely balanced. Any stronger, and the universe would consist of the near-equivalent of a neutron star at the center of the universe and nothing any where else. Any weaker and the universe would consist of a diffuse "gas" throughout the universe. Neither of these would support life. Intelligent Design states that there is no reason for these forces to be balanced so closely, therefore an intelligence whose goal was to achieve life balanced those forces thusly. There are some 50 to 80 balanced "forces" highlighted by proponents. If it were found that the forces had to be what they are, that is--they couldn't be varied by an intelligence any more than an intelligence can make 1 + 1 equal any thing other than 2--that would tend to falsify Intelligent Design. Supersymmetry is a theory that proposes that the forces in question must be what they are. Therefore any experiment that could support Supersymmetry would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
Another idea posed by Intelligent design is that there is a certain minimum amount of information needed to have life--things like ribosomes and transcriptase. Evolution cannot be used to explain abiogenesis because evolution cannot exist without life, therefore some other process must be used to explain abiogenesis. Calculations show, hoever, that random processes cannot proceed rapidly enough, given the number of baryons in the universe, to create the necessary information short of a huge number of lifetimes of the universe. Therefore something other than random processes had to create the minimum amount of information to begin life. Any experiment that showed that a substantially lesser amount of information were needed would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design posits that life began within one hundred million years after life became possible (shortly after cooling to the point of liquid water.) This is a short time in geological terms. However, life has not begun once since. Therefore something either actively created life once it became possible or something actively keeps new forms of life from springing up. Any experiment that found that life has spontaneously generated approximately thirty times on Earth since then would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design posits that life changed very slowly immediately after life began, then a profusion of new life forms came into existence during the cambrian period, and life has changed very slowly since. Intellient Design claims that this history is consistent with an intelligence stepping in and taking an active hand, and then ceasing. Intelligent design claims that this is inconsistent with random processes operating slowly over time. Any experiment that showed that mutagenic forces were at work during the cambrian period, which weren't also at work during other periods, would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
By the way, the general tone of your post is sarcastic and demeaning, and makes an excellent example the close mindedness of some proponents of Evolution.
I would like to say something about your use of scare quotes around the word "theory." I think you'll find, if you look, that a theory is defined as a set of statements having two subsets--the set of statements that are acceptable (s.k.a True,) and those that aren't (s.k.a False.) Thus Intelligent Design easily meets the definition of theory, and your use of scare quotes is unwarranted.
By the way, I suspect you don't know the meaning of "falsifiable" in the sense of Popper.
Here's why it's bunkum:there is no controversy. ID/Creationism, not being falsifiable, is not science, and does not belong in a science classroom.
A very well-reasoned post, and your conclusions are inescapable--except for one thing. Intelligent Design is falsifiable, thus is science, and thus should be taught in the classroom.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them."
I've seen that claim a lot, but nothing I've found in logic, mathematics, or physics supports it. From what I've seen any claim requires the exact same amount of support as any other claim. However, it seems to be important to you, so let's make a deal. I will grant you the power to require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims if you grant me the power to decide which claims are extraordinary.
Or, stated another way, that claim seems extraordinary. May I see what evidence you have to support it?
But domain names are NOT responsible for porn getting onto children's computers, libraries, schools, etc. That is the fault of the parents and also the child themselves.
Not always. My son liked a video game called Zelda, and had earlier learned that if you wanted to find something on the internet you just put www. in front of it and.com after. This usually works, but www.zelda.com is an exception. Not my fault. Not his fault.
Lots of people are demanding that one character class be nerfed, or another be buffed, and I know that Blizzard has done lots of character balancing. Do you guys keep a record of what character classes defeat what character classes in PvP? Do you collect any other kind of objective measure of what character classes are better than what character classes? Are there cycles of the sort such as rock beats scissors, which beats paper, which beats rock?
Ok so what of the academic ideals of spreading knowledge and learning? This is a result of american school industry.. It is unfortunate that learning has become a profit commodity for a privileged few in what is supposed to be a land of equality and opportunity for all...
Well, the problem is too few people volunteering to do it. Fortunately, in you we've found just the sort of person willing to embody those ideals. Simply work full time, unpaid, providing those benefits to those people. That's all there is to it. Just queue up in that short line, and work until there's equality and opportunity for all.
People who believe in anything that isn't objectively verifiable, do not believe because of logic.
Any logic one chooses (to reason about the universe) is either incomplete (i.e. there are true statements that are unprovable within the logic) or inconsistent. Let me ask two questions. One, is the Eiffel Tower objectively verifiable (such that you have evidence of its existence?) Two, did not Jesus exist (such that no evidence is obtainable?)
This includes religious belief, since it is, by definition, faith-based.
Correction: this concludes any axiomatic system since they are, by definition, faith-based.
Faith is not rational or logical- it is merely a manner in which we choose to structure our worldview.
Bertrand Russell said that mathematics is the study whereby we don't know what we are talking about, and we don't know whether anything we've said is true.
So if there are finite particles in this universe and an infinite amount of time, isn't there a probability of 1 that the particles will arrange themselves in the same orientation they are now at some point in the future and for that matter, infinitely more times in the future? So we will be right where we are now. Oh well, I'll finish this post then.
Perhaps. Assuming that there aren't some kinds of local minima such that the particles become stuck in one orientation. On the other hand, there hasn't been an infinite amount of time. There has only been 17 thousand million, and 17,000,000,000 isn't larger than infinity, even for extremely large values of 17,000,000,000.
Why would a complex entity outside of the universe not require an intelligent cause, but a complex entity inside the universe necessarily require one?
It's because everything in the universe is observed to have a cause. Contrariwise, complex entities outside the universe have never been observed to have one.
Oh and, as for "raising taxes"... well, at least you have a say in that.
I told my government not to charge me so much taxes last year, but today they are demanding a huge amount, of which they made me pay 90% in advance.
Unlike when your cable bill is raised month-in-month out ad nauseam.
I don't have cable, but two years ago I did have dial up. I decided they were too slow, so I told them to stop charging me for it, and I've never had to pay them again.
But why let reality get in the way of your ideology! Good job at keeping the blinders up!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, some evolutionists have an agenda. For example, Ernst Haeckel had one. Following his agenda, he copied some illustrations of embryos and claimed them to be of different species, and he fraudulently modified the illustrations of others in order to support his idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. See, for example http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Hae ckel.html.
We don't consider science to be subject to public policy, and as such, laymen don't get a vote.
We? Do I understand you claim to be an evolutionist? And you get a vote? And I don't get a vote? Because I'm not an evolutioninst?
That absolutely has everything to do with embryonic development which is known to mirror vertebrate evolution, at least to those who follow science.
It's not known to those who follow science as recently as 1874. Because it was on that date that Wilhelm His showed Haeckels work to be fraudulent. Nor to those who have followed science as recently as 1921 when the recapitulition theory was refuted in a paper by Walter Garstang. Nor to those who have followed it as recently as 1956 when the introdution to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species included the fact of Haeckel's fraud in the introduction.
Don't fall off the edge of the flat earth on your way out the door.
Should I also be wary of the phlogiston?
-Loyal
No, wait--that's what they WANT us to think...
-Loyal
Wonderful. Next, could we have high-resolution maps of instances?
-Loyal
True, but not germane. (Actually I think Mercury's motion was discovered after Einstein's theory of relativity, but that's not germane either.)
You know, two properties ID "theory" doesn't have.
Germane, but not true.
-Loyal
What I didn't mention earlier (because, honestly, I didn't think I needed to...I assumed it was a given), was that for a scientific theory to be taken seriously, it must be (a) falsifiable, and (b) not falsified as well.
That may have been what you meant, but it's certainly not what you said. I prefer not to make unnecessary assumptions about the arguments put forth by others, a compunction under which you appear not to labor.
But now in addition to impuning meanings I did not imply, you ignore arguments I have made. Newtonian physics has been falsified. Would you have it that Newtonian physics should not be taught?
Here's the problem, though. Showing a claim made by ID false does not falsify the theory, because IDers can always retreat to the unassailable notion that 'God made it that way'. Real scientific disciplines do not have that luxury.
On the contrary. Ad Hoc Rescue has been attempted for scientific theories since time immemorial. To be scientific an endeavour should be amenable to the scientific method.
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.
I claim that Intelligent Design is amenable to all four, and thus should be taught. (Actually I'm not sure whether it should be taught or not, but for the sake of argument...) That was your claim initially, but now you seem to have a modified claim that only that subset of scientific endeavour should be that that has not been falsified. I suspect that now you will want to change your claim again in some manner that includes Newtonian physics, but I'll wait to hear what you have to say before I make any conclusions. Perhaps you want to claim that only serious scientific theories should be taught, in which case I would like to hear the definition of serious scientific theories. I would also like to know your opinion on "all true Scotsmen."
-Loyal
That's not my observation. My observation is that the physicist who disproves relativity will be famous, receive loads of grants and accolades, and have units of measure named after him. I've seen television interviews of physicists who have devoted their life's work toward disproving the theory of relativity.
I wanted to address one other part of your other posts. Evolution is a theory of change over time in species. It is not a theory of abiogenesis. The beginnings of life are seperate theories, and while they are obviously linked with evolution one is not required for the other to be correct.
Ah! Good! We're in agreement then.
Perhaps it is intelligent design that started evolution, perhaps it was abiogenesis, perhaps it was something else.
You seem to be using "abiogenesis" differently than I am. I take abiogenesis to me "life beginning from non-life." You seem to mean "life beginning from non-life exclusively through random processes."
Scientifically, it still does not matter - abiogenesis, until disproved with something other than "well, that seems convienent, so it had to be a creator", will be the only testable theory, and therefor the only useful one to science.
How do you reach that conclusion?
-Loyal
The anthropic principle is a principle that explains nothing at all. It is non-falsifiable, and therefore not science. I'm asking why we exist, and you answer by saying, "given that we exist, things will look this way." I'm asking why isn't it the case that we don't exist at all? Especially given the fact (if fact it be) that it's 10^43 time more likely that we not exist.
But let me ask you this question--is it true that you have postulated the existence of an infinite number of things that we can never observe as a way of explaining away one thing that we might possibly observe some day?
-Loyal
But I'm not trying to prove Intellient Design. I'm trying to prove Intelligent Design is falsifiable. If the proportion of the strong to weak force can be other than they are, then that would tend to disprove Intelligent Design. Therefore Intelligent Design makes a prediction that is testable. Therefore Intelligent Design is a science. Therefore Intelligent Design should be taught in school (by your argument. I make no claim either way.)
In fact all three of your other arguments, like this one, amount to a claim that the claims made by Intelligent Design are false. That being the case, Intelligent Design is falsifiable, and you have made my argument for me.
I'm also sorry you percieve those who do not abandon rationality in favor of 'God did it' at the slightest pretext as 'close minded'.
Your statement has the flavor of eight-year-olds arguing. "I'm sorry you're such a stupid-head." "Yeah, I'm sorry you're such a dip weed." Yet another example of pre-judging the issue.
Your definition of the word theory is disingenuous in the extreme...and sadly, par for the course for ID proponents.
Our definitions are exactly equivalent except for your defintion 3 (about which more anon.) That being the case, your definition is disingenuous and, sadly, par for the course for...whatever you are."
The disadvantage of your definition 3 is it disallows one to speak of outmoded or disproven theories, like the phlogiston theory of fire. By your definition 3, all theories are probable.
-Loyal
Because when one reasons about the physical sciences one uses inductive reasoning. If this bacterium is susceptable to penicillin and that bacterium is susceptable to penicillin and the other bacterium is susceptable to penicillin, maybe all bacteria are susceptable to penicillin. On the other hand, maybe they were susceptible to the alcohol used to suspend the penicillin and drowned. (I'm sorry. I'm no expert in the biological sciences, so maybe bacteria aren't susceptible to alcohol. It's not germain to the argument I present.) It's only in the mathematical sciences that we can prove, given certain axioms and methods of inference, that for examle there is no largest prime number.
Believers in ID did not become so by looking at the strong and weak nuclear forces.
So you believe that a statement is true or false depending on how the proponents of the statement came to examine it? If I could give you one example of a person who believes Intelligent Design by examining the strong and weak nuclear forces, would you then come to believe Intelligent Design?
The suggestion that a single development (in an area of physics that most of these people don't even know about) could change their minds is either naive or dishonest.
Who has made such a suggestion?
The only way to disprove ID is to solve all of the unknowns in science, to such a degree that ID believers can no longer quibble over the definition of the word "theory". Personally I don't believe that's possible.
I note that the way Newtonian physics was disproved was through Einstein's theory of relativity (The General one, I think, but I'm not certain.) I note that scores of physicists are trying to disprove the theory of relativity at this moment. Would you similarly claim that the only way to disprove Einstein's general theory of relativity is to solve all the unknowns in science to such a degree that ToR believers can no longer quibble over the definition of the word "theory?" If not, why not?
-Loyal
One idea posited by Intelligent Design is that the strong and weak nuclear forces are finely balanced. Any stronger, and the universe would consist of the near-equivalent of a neutron star at the center of the universe and nothing any where else. Any weaker and the universe would consist of a diffuse "gas" throughout the universe. Neither of these would support life. Intelligent Design states that there is no reason for these forces to be balanced so closely, therefore an intelligence whose goal was to achieve life balanced those forces thusly. There are some 50 to 80 balanced "forces" highlighted by proponents. If it were found that the forces had to be what they are, that is--they couldn't be varied by an intelligence any more than an intelligence can make 1 + 1 equal any thing other than 2--that would tend to falsify Intelligent Design. Supersymmetry is a theory that proposes that the forces in question must be what they are. Therefore any experiment that could support Supersymmetry would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
Another idea posed by Intelligent design is that there is a certain minimum amount of information needed to have life--things like ribosomes and transcriptase. Evolution cannot be used to explain abiogenesis because evolution cannot exist without life, therefore some other process must be used to explain abiogenesis. Calculations show, hoever, that random processes cannot proceed rapidly enough, given the number of baryons in the universe, to create the necessary information short of a huge number of lifetimes of the universe. Therefore something other than random processes had to create the minimum amount of information to begin life. Any experiment that showed that a substantially lesser amount of information were needed would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design posits that life began within one hundred million years after life became possible (shortly after cooling to the point of liquid water.) This is a short time in geological terms. However, life has not begun once since. Therefore something either actively created life once it became possible or something actively keeps new forms of life from springing up. Any experiment that found that life has spontaneously generated approximately thirty times on Earth since then would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design posits that life changed very slowly immediately after life began, then a profusion of new life forms came into existence during the cambrian period, and life has changed very slowly since. Intellient Design claims that this history is consistent with an intelligence stepping in and taking an active hand, and then ceasing. Intelligent design claims that this is inconsistent with random processes operating slowly over time. Any experiment that showed that mutagenic forces were at work during the cambrian period, which weren't also at work during other periods, would tend to falsify Intelligent Design.
By the way, the general tone of your post is sarcastic and demeaning, and makes an excellent example the close mindedness of some proponents of Evolution.
I would like to say something about your use of scare quotes around the word "theory." I think you'll find, if you look, that a theory is defined as a set of statements having two subsets--the set of statements that are acceptable (s.k.a True,) and those that aren't (s.k.a False.) Thus Intelligent Design easily meets the definition of theory, and your use of scare quotes is unwarranted.
By the way, I suspect you don't know the meaning of "falsifiable" in the sense of Popper.
We're all waiting...
With bated breath?
-Loyal
A very well-reasoned post, and your conclusions are inescapable--except for one thing. Intelligent Design is falsifiable, thus is science, and thus should be taught in the classroom.
-Loyal
I see you're from the "At least one sheep in Scotland is black on at least one side" school of science.
-Loyal
I've seen that claim a lot, but nothing I've found in logic, mathematics, or physics supports it. From what I've seen any claim requires the exact same amount of support as any other claim. However, it seems to be important to you, so let's make a deal. I will grant you the power to require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims if you grant me the power to decide which claims are extraordinary.
Or, stated another way, that claim seems extraordinary. May I see what evidence you have to support it?
-Loyal
Not always. My son liked a video game called Zelda, and had earlier learned that if you wanted to find something on the internet you just put www. in front of it and .com after. This usually works, but www.zelda.com is an exception. Not my fault. Not his fault.
-Loyal
Goto Considered Helpful?
-Loyal
In unrelated news Bicycle Company, Inc., announced a new rack-mountable version of its popular Deck of Playing Cards.
-Loyal
Loyal
Well, the problem is too few people volunteering to do it. Fortunately, in you we've found just the sort of person willing to embody those ideals. Simply work full time, unpaid, providing those benefits to those people. That's all there is to it. Just queue up in that short line, and work until there's equality and opportunity for all.
-Loyal
Any logic one chooses (to reason about the universe) is either incomplete (i.e. there are true statements that are unprovable within the logic) or inconsistent. Let me ask two questions. One, is the Eiffel Tower objectively verifiable (such that you have evidence of its existence?) Two, did not Jesus exist (such that no evidence is obtainable?)
This includes religious belief, since it is, by definition, faith-based.
Correction: this concludes any axiomatic system since they are, by definition, faith-based.
Faith is not rational or logical- it is merely a manner in which we choose to structure our worldview.
Bertrand Russell said that mathematics is the study whereby we don't know what we are talking about, and we don't know whether anything we've said is true.
-Loyal
From now on, cars will have "issues."
-Loyal
Really? How do you prove the scientific method? Do you use the scientific method? If you do, aren't you being circular?
-Loyal
Perhaps. Assuming that there aren't some kinds of local minima such that the particles become stuck in one orientation. On the other hand, there hasn't been an infinite amount of time. There has only been 17 thousand million, and 17,000,000,000 isn't larger than infinity, even for extremely large values of 17,000,000,000.
-Loyal
It's because everything in the universe is observed to have a cause. Contrariwise, complex entities outside the universe have never been observed to have one.
--Loyal
I took the parent post as a remark about verbification. By the way, you should have capitalized "Google" and your comma should have been a semicolon.
-Loyal
I told my government not to charge me so much taxes last year, but today they are demanding a huge amount, of which they made me pay 90% in advance.
Unlike when your cable bill is raised month-in-month out ad nauseam.
I don't have cable, but two years ago I did have dial up. I decided they were too slow, so I told them to stop charging me for it, and I've never had to pay them again.
But why let reality get in the way of your ideology! Good job at keeping the blinders up!
Who's wearing the blinders?
-Loyal