Java Script / J Script is the devil. Development is a sloppy crap shoot, but we use it because it's there. It's now being used for ridiculous things that it was never really designed for.
I agree that there are sometimes compatibility issues with complex Javascript, but I think you overexaggerate Javascript's flaws.
As a language, Javascript is simple, but has a very rich featureset. The standard libraries allow it to interface with the DOM of a HTML page. The only significant problem I can think of is Javascript's lack of thread control structures, which may prove problematic for applications that handle complicated asynchronous events.
I'm not sure why you think Javascript is "being used for ridiculous things that it was never really designed for", as it's a rather generic scripting language, and its standard library is small and to the point. Could you give an example of some of Javascript's perceived shortfalls?
I think it was clear from the very beginning that my definition of science is different from the majority
But as I've made clear, I accept that under your definition, macro-evolution probably cannot be considered a science. Thus, any further discussion on this subject can only deal with the common definition, because that appears to be the only thing we disagree on. Unless you agree that macro-evolution qualifies as a scientific theory under the common definition of the term, but in which case, what are we arguing about?:)
"Majority" is not enough for scientific theory, it should be "consensus", and, well, it should be scientific.
Fair enough, although nothing in the Wikipedia definition says that there has to be a consensus, so presumably this argument draws from your own definition, and hence is a moot point.
Do you have any imaginary repeatable experiments in the controlled environment for macroevolution theory at the current time that would falsify macroevolution?
Nothing that would appear to adhere to your viewpoint on falsifiability, nor am I interested in pursuing such an argument. If you wish to restrict your definition of science beyond the norm, that's up to you. I'm merely arguing that macro-evolution, according to the common viewpoints on science, easily qualifies as a scientific theory.
Any arguments based on your personal philosophy is pointless, since I already agree that your macro-evolution doesn't qualify as a scientific theory under your particular definition of that term. Either we argue solely upon the commonly accepted definition on the term, or we have already reached consensus.
Listen, Averos. Last several posts all that you do is finding loopholes in my definitions. There is ambiguity in language, and definitions of things in the real world are not precise, expecially in the field of phylosophy, which is the broad subject of our discussion.
I do not nitpick intentionally. I am merely trying to understand what you mean by the words you use. For instance, you've used the phrase "existing theory", and by this I first assumed you meant, "a theory that exists". Thus, if I state a theory, it exists because I have stated it, and therefore is an existing theory. However, you appear to mean something different, and I am unsure quite what this meaning is.
Perhaps you mean "a theory accepted by the majority", but due to your earlier arguments about the irrelevance of the majority, I'd venture to think that this is not the case. Perhaps, then, you mean "a theory that has not been falsified", but again you've pointed out that invalidating a theory doesn't make it any less a theory. Maybe you mean "a theory that has not been falsified for a period of time", but if so, how does one define the length of that time period?
You see the problem? It's not that I'm nitpicking on purpose, it's that you use words whose meaning I cannot even begin to guess at.
I gave you my definitions of science. You have yours. Your definition of science is shared by "scientific community" which you seem to accept as some kind of authority that make this definition valid. Fine.
No, you're misunderstanding me. Let me make this perfectly clear. Neither of our definitions of science is any more valid than the other. So long as a system is logically consistent, the philosophical axioms its based upon cannot be said to be more valid than any other.
My issue is that if your definition is sufficiently different from the majority's, this should be stated at the outset. Consider the following argument:
"Cats typically hunt in packs."
"No they aren't; most cats hunt individually."
And is counterpart:
"I define the word "cat" to refer to the canine family of animals. This differs from the normal use of the word, but is no less valid. I assert that cats typically hunt in packs."
"I agree with that assertion."
It is not that I think that the definition of the majority is any more valid, merely that if you are going to stray from common definitions you should at least tell people such.
I doubt many have taken the same amount of time they spent learning their compsci craft to at least understand the issues and the arguments for evolution vs. intelligent design. Knee-jerk reactions simply toady to the mob and do nothing to add to the discussion. See http://www.askmrreligion.com/ and mention in your request that you are a/.-er and your question will be answered without the usual donation fee.
I don't think many/.ers see this as a religious question. Instead, it's more a case that they don't consider the science classroom an appropriate place to teach Intelligent Design, as ID is not a scientific theory.
There is no "existing theory" of photons traveling 6m/s
Of course there is; I proposed just such a theory a couple of threads ago. Furthermore, it adheres precisely to the definition of a scientific theory:
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
It may be completely wrong, and there may be tonnes of evidence that disproves it, but that doesn't make it any less a theory. It describes the interaction of a set of natural phenomena (i.e. photons), is capable of predicting future observations (incorrectly, but nothing in the definition deals with correctness), and is capable of being falsified through experiment.
Thus, it is an existing scientific theory. One that's demonstratively incorrect, perhaps, but no less a scientific theory because of it.
The theory that you need force to maintain a speed was scientific (wrong, but...).
If you accept that a scientific theory is still a theory even if it is incorrect, why do you not consider my "slow photonic theory" to be a theory?
I stopped using linux when after finally getting through the libc vs glibc mess, only to encounter the wonder that is libpng2 vs libpng3. fuck you libpng. every app used a different version and since they were two packages which had the EXACT SAME FUCKING FILES IN THE SAME FUCKING PLACE, you cant install both at the same time.
i love this part in the first link though,
"First and foremost, because some development libraries depend on libpng2-dev and others depend on libpng3-dev; since these two packages can *not* be installed at the same time, this means you have to install and deinstall not only libpng2-dev and libpng3-dev but also a bunch of other -dev packages which depend on those. " You realise that libpng2-dev and libpng3-dev are just the development packages, don't you? They're only required when you want to compile something that needs the header files included in the packages. The binary packages of libpng2 and libpng3 (at least in Woody and Sarge) use different files, so there appears to be no reason why they cannot be installed on the same system.
First, the theory that photons travel at 6 m/s is not accepted scientific theory.
If by that you mean that the theory has been disproved, then of course you are correct. However, you didn't specify that as a requisite; you merely say that the event should "not falsify other independently existing theories". Just because a theory has been shown to be incorrect, doesn't prevent it being considered a theory.
Second, at the time of Newton, when mechanics was not developed yet, the law that in order for a body to maintain a speed it needs a resulting force in that direction did not contradict existing theories.
That's a curious statement. Are you saying that a theory that has been disproved is no longer a theory? Or are saying that whether or not something is considered a theory depends on the knowledge available at the time it is first thought of?
Because your examples of falsifiability were not accepted.
My point was that it was not at not clear why they were not accepted.
That is why for falsifiability you need to present an event that would not falsify other independently existing theories. Do you agree with that?
No, because such a requisite would invalidate the majority, if not all, scientific theories. For instance, observing a photon travelling at 5 m/s in a vacuum would invalidate Special Relativity; however, it would also invalidate the theory that photons travel at 6 m/s, and the theory that photons travel at 7 m/s. For any event that can be observed, one can produce a large number of independent theories that would be invalidated by it.
Nowadays, almost all applications store their dependecy files in their own folders. Yes it leads to bloat, but at least I don't break App1 when I install App2 because of a version conflict in some module. Besides, who's still running Linux on a 4GB drive and installing multiple applications these days?
There are reasons other than bloat for separating out dependencies. For instance, say a vulnerability was reported in zlib. If every application had their own implementation of zlib, then one would have to replace zlib for every application. A shared library doesn't have this problem; it can be upgraded without problems so long as it remains backward compatible. Compartmentalising functionality is common practise in the open source world.
However, there are various file distribution systems available for Linux that include dependency files with the application. Klik, for instance, wraps up applications in a self-contained compressed filesystem. However, the problem with modern Linux distributions is not so much dependencies, but a lack of a common method of installing software.
I disagree. If you are using an IDE that provides the option of collapsing blocks, then wrapping the code to be skipped actually makes the code easier to read. Personal opinion:). I dislike collapsing blocks because you can't see all the code at a glance. I prefer being able to have a good overview of my code, so I tend to small, compact functions that will fit, more or less, on a single screen.
Secondly, there are situations where a break is neater and more concise than ending the loop via a condition. Compare:
continue_loop = true;
for (i = 0; i < lambdas.length && continue_loop; i++) {
try {
lambdas[i]();
continue_loop = false;
}
catch (e) {} }
To:
for (i = 0; i < lambdas.length; i++) {
try {
lambdas[i]();
break;
}
catch (e) {} }
Further, many languages have the notion of a foreach block, where one cannot introduce further conditions without resorting to a classic for loop. Compare:
for (int i = 0; i < names.length || names[i] == rightName; i++); name = names[i];
To:
for (name : names)
if (name == rightName) break;
Finally, some languages don't even have a concept of a for-loop, so you have a choice between this:
i = 0 while i < len(names) or names[i] == rightName:
i += 1 name = names[i]
Or this:
for name in names:
if name == rightName: break
And with prototype.js, you can combine a the functionality of a filter and a map using a continue:
$R(0, 10).map(function(x) {
if (x % 2 == 0) throw $continue;
return x * x }
Okay, so you got me on the last one; it's an exception masquerading as a continue statement:)
and that has not been falsified either, because there were many other reasons which I mentioned that do not accept it as a falsifiability argument.
Let's clarify exactly why you don't accept that the macro-evolution-earth theory is falsifiable, because from my perspective, it seems far from clear.
In order to falsify a theory, it needs to be possible, at least in principle, for one to make a set of empirical observations that would be highly improbable to have observed if the theory were correct.
For instance, if the macro-evolution-earth theory were correct, it would be highly improbable to discover the words "Made by Zod" printed upon every living being. This would be an empirical observation, and according to theory it would be highly improbable. Hence, the macro-evolution-earth is falsifiable, at least in principle, and thus it is a scientific theory.
The cost is 1 layer of nesting, the benefit is a lot of clarity. If you have a lot of nesting, and if your nested blocks are on the lengthy side, things can get unclear. Keywords like break and continue, and to a lesser extent return, are just optional syntactical sugar that can make code easier to read.
As I clearly stated in my last post, I'm arguing that the theory that life originated through macro-evolution on Earth is falsifiable.
And I as have proven it to you, only "on Earth" part is falsifiable.
Good, because that's all I'm arguing for.
I accept that one cannot disprove the hypothesis that life evolved elsewhere and was transported to Earth, any more than one can disprove the Intelligent Design hypothesis. All I'm interested in is the falsifiability of macro-evolution occurring on Earth. Since you appear to accept that, it would seem we have reached consensus.
Nah dude, it's totally OK to dis other people's religion.
I'm glad you agree. Dissing other people's religions and ideologies is an important part of free speech.
Yeah yeah, I know--all Christians are pigheaded morons who take the bible literally.
You're setting up a straw man. The OP merely implied that Christianity was akin to believing in a fairy tale; it does not automatically follow that the OP believes all Christians take the Bible literally.
And moreover, their whole religion is a fairy tale.
That is what the OP said.
See because, it's OK for you to hate and belittle their religion, while at the same time damning all the Christian believers for being bigots.
When did the OP say he hated Christianity? When did the OP damn Christians as being bigots?
I guess it's OK to be a bigot, as long as you're not Christian.
But it's not okay to present a flimsy straw man, constructed through torturous leaps of illogic, as somehow being a valid argument. Lose that persecution complex, and quit putting words in people's mouths.
I gave you several reasons why your "10,000 yr" illustration is not working.
But none of those examples appear to make any sense. For instance, you say:
If the Earth would be 10,000 yr old, it won't disprove that macro-evolution was wrong, it only disprove the fact that life existed on this planet for longer.
We've already established that science works with probabilities, and that falsification equates to observing a collection of evidence that would be highly improbable if the theory were true.
Secondly, the probability that macro-evolution produced all the present species on Earth in one billion years, is significantly higher than the probability that it produced all the species on Earth a mere 10'000 years ago. And going further still, it is unlikely in the extreme that it occurred a mere 100 years ago.
The logical conclusion from the above two paragraphs is that if the old Earth theory is falsifiable, then macro-evolution on Earth is falsifiable. In order to argue against this, one must disagree with one of the two statements that lead to this conclusion. Either you disagree with the definition of falsification I provided, or you consider macro-evolution occurring in a 100 year timespan no less likely than macro-evolution occurring in a one billion year timespan.
The rebuttal to this fact would be: "then life evolved on a different planet and was transfered here".
Yes, but that's entirely beside the point. As I clearly stated in my last post, I'm arguing that the theory that life originated through macro-evolution on Earth is falsifiable. If we had evidence life evolved on another planet and was transferred here, that would falsify my theory. Again, all I'm arguing for is that the falsifiability of the theory that macro-evolution, taking place on this planet, was the mechanism that produced every species on Earth.
This argument is seriously considered valid for the origin of primordial organic life, why not for the origins of ALL life?
One would have to specify the mechanism for it to be a valid theory, otherwise one couldn't falsify the theory. If the mechanism was "Omnipotent aliens who would leave absolutely no evidence of their involvement", then there'd clearly be a problem. But if the mechanism was, "Aliens in huge nuclear powered spaceships", then we'd expect to find evidence of large amounts of nuclear activity, fossilized landing marks, and so forth; and the absence of such evidence would disprove the theory.
Right, because goto's are ill-advised because they're spelled G-O-T-O, but if you have something that does essentially the same thing but uses a different name, then it's okay.
You could make the same argument about 'break'. However, whilst one can simulate the functionality of 'continue', or 'break', or even 'return' with goto, each of these keywords is significantly more specialised and limited in scope. Equating the disadvantages of goto with continue is just silly.
First of all, String and the primitive wrapper classes are used by most of the core classes like ClassLoader and Class. If they could be overridden, it would be a gigantic security hole.
One could get around this problem simply by restricting the effects of the overrides to a subset of classes. For instance, one could restrict it to a certain namespace, or a certain application domain. I should point out that the JVM-based language Nice allows one to override existing methods without incompatibility issues with standard class files, so it's quite possible to have the functionality described without compromising security.
But in the grand scheme of things, we're more likely to be classified as a 'parasite' on the planet since 'modern' civilizations haven't been able to live in harmony with the environment we occupy.
No animal intentionally lives in harmony with their environment. The only reason humans are causing a mass extinction rather than any other animal, is because we're considerably more efficient, so much so that we're in a different league entirely to other animals. The reason we're having problems is because of our success as a predator; we have to reign in our power considerably in order to prevent the destruction of the environment around us. Few species are capable of such restraint.
"However if one observes somewhere a planet 10,000 years old with developed life". Compare.
Then that would falsify the theory that macro-evolution is the mechanism responsible for life on all planets. However, your hypothetical planet doesn't falsify the theory that macro-evolution is responsible for life on this planet, and that's what I'm arguing for. When I speak of macro-evolution, I'm referring to the origin of species on Earth. One cannot disprove that macro-evolution hasn't taken place elsewhere in the Universe, but one can, in principle, disprove that it occurred here on Earth.
Falsification is not an event, it is an experimental observation.
As I pointed out, this is probably not a common view. Both Wikipedia and I adhere to a different definition, and it is likely that this is the most commonly accepted definition, for reasons I've already covered.
Macro-evolution is not dealing with repeatable observations.
One can observe readings from a mass spectrometer, and observe them repeatedly, for many different samples. I've already explained how readings from a mass spectrometer could, in principle, act as evidence toward the falsification of the old Earth theory, and hence, macro-evolution. Thus, macro-evolution does deal with repeatable observations, or, to be more precise, it is possible to use repeatable observations to falsify macro-evolution.
Your falsifiability arguments on Special relativity are all repeatable. The kind of arguments your type would be using for Special relativity would be: "speed of light is not 5m/s, but 300,000km/s", "alpha is 1/127, not 1/255, here is for you". I am speechless at this point.
I am uncertain quite what you mean by this. However, if one observed a photon travelling at 5m/s in a vacuum, that would certainly count against Special Relativity. This in turn implies that Special Relativity is falsifiable, because it is possible, at least in principle, that one could observe a photon doing something Special Relativity says it cannot do. For the purposes of falsification, it doesn't matter how fast our hypothetical photon is travelling, so long as it's speed != c.
There appear to be two problems with your argument, which are either logical flaws or a misinterpretation of what the discussion involves. Consider the definition from Wikipedia:
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
And then your assertion concerning the nature of falsification:
Now it should be clear why the quoted statement is wrong. The falsification should be a repeatable experiment. The Earth being billion years old (again, I am not speaking whether it is fact or not, I am assuming that it is a fact for the sake of point) is not a repeatable experiment. This is just one fact.
You appear to be arguing from your own definition of a scientific theory, where falsification can only be achieved through experimentation. The Wikipedia definition is more broad: a theory can be falsified through experiments, "or otherwise falsified through empirical observation". Wikipedia creates a clear distinction between experimentation, and empirical observation. If we now turn to the definition of "empirical", we find two distinct meanings:
A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.
In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation.
Since there was a clear distinction between "tested through experiment" and "empirical observation", we must be dealing with the first meaning of the term "empirical". Thus, according to the definition of Wikipedia, all that is needed to falsify a theory is evidence that is "observable by the senses". When I speak of repeated observations, I mean just that; not repeated experiments, but repeated observations.
Thus, the most common way of defining a scientific theory is to include theories that rely on empirical evidence, even if that evidence is not gained through repeatable experimentation. If you wish to hold a different definition, that's up to you, but using the commonly accepted definition, falsification does not necessarily require repeatable experimentation.
Now I've clarified that point a little, on to the second flaw/misinterpretation:
And why you assume that billion years old is enough? Where is the limit? Would you say that Earth being 1billion years old would falsify macro-evolution?
I cannot hazard a guess as to why you consider this line of reasoning valid. We're discussing falsification, not verification. It surely doesn't matter where the limit is, so long as the chosen figure of 10'000 years is within bounds.
For instance, say I have a hypothesis, where 2x < 10 is true for all x, where x is a member of the natural numbers. In order to falsify this, all I require is an instance where 2x >= 10. The smallest value of x that will falsify this is obviously 5, but for the purposes of falsification I could use 50, 943, or even 200'000'000. The limit itself is irrelevant, so long as my choice of x is not beyond it.
Thus, whilst 1 billion years may or may not be enough time for a diverse array of species to evolve on Earth, that's completely irrelevant to the process of falsification. All that matters is that 10'000 years is sufficiently within the limit, and I doubt you'd find any biologist who'd claim that it was feasible for macro-evolution to produce all the species on Earth within 10'000 years. And even if it was, I could just lower the limit to 5'000, or 4'000; all that matters is that there is a limit, and that it's possible to pick a span of time
Macro-evolution is not falsifiable. We did not agree on that.
Fair enough. First of all, lets be clear that observation of the Universe is imprecise. Not only can their be problems with one's measuring instruments, it's also quite possible that your results are a fluke. If this were not the case, there'd be no need to make repeated observations. Thus, science relies on probabilities. We cannot be 100% certain of a piece of evidence, in the same way we can be absolutely certain of a mathematical theorem. But we can be 99% certain, or 99.9% certain, or even 99.9999% certain, depending on how good our instruments are, how often we repeat the observation, and under what circumstances it is repeated.
Thus, when one speaks of falsifying a theory, what one means is to reduce the margin of error to sufficiently low levels. We cannot prove absolutely that all our measurements are correct, but we can take enough measurements to demonstrate that it is extremely unlikely that the theory in question is true.
Secondly, the theory of macro-evolution, like many other theories, depends on a number of conditions. For instance, if the Earth were merely 10'000 years old, there would be insufficient time for complex species to evolve. Or, to be more precise, it is incredibly unlikely that we could go from molecular proto-life to multicellular organisms within a mere 100 centuries. Therefore, we can create a dependency from the age of the Earth, to the theory of macro-evolution. I'll again reiterate my point: this is not a precise dependency, in the same way that a mathematical proof can be shown to be exactly dependent on a number of axioms. Instead, it is a dependency based on probability; it is not impossible that billions of species could arise in 10'000 years, but such a possibility is unlikely in the extreme, and below the threshold of evidence normally required in scientific research.
The Earth's age, in turn, is dependent on a further set of theories. We observe the half-life of certain elements in the laboratory, and thus we would expect to see evidence of that decay outside the laboratory. We use triangulation to fix the distance of stars, and using Relativity we work out how long the light has been travelling for. Relativity in turn has been the result of many experiments, and thus we go down a long chain of interconnecting theories held up by the weight of a vast collection of evidence collected over the centuries.
If a majority of this evidence were to contradict the idea of an old Earth; for instance, if all the stars we could see were only 10'000 lightyears away, and all the radioactive decay measured in rocks indicated that they were created 10'000 years ago, and if sedimentary rocks were rare and shallow, and numerous other things, then these individual observations would start to stack up. What is the probability of Earth being old, if a vast amount of evidence would suggest otherwise? Given enough evidence that would appear to suggest otherwise, you're eventually going to reach the tipping point, and the theory of an old Earth, and hence the theory of macro-evolution, becomes so improbable as to be considered impossible, and thus the theory is shown to be false.
Indeed, macro-evolution is not particularly special in this regard. For instance, you're probably aware that Special Relativity predicts a time dilation effect when particles accelerate to high velocities, and that in 1971 an experiment was conducted where four caesium atomic beam clocks were flown around the world, once westward and once eastward, on commercial jet flights. The results of the experiment showed the time dilation effects Einstein predicted, but these results were based upon the measurements of the caesium atomic beam clocks, and their accuracy is in turn based upon subsequent theories regarding particles, electromagnetism and atomic interaction, and a whole host of other theories. Any complex theory relies on simpler theories to provide potential falsification. But because these theor
We are talking scientific theories. Theory of who did 9/11 (anyone) is not scientific. And scientific theories do not exist without evidence and fact, or without reasonable possibility of testing them. That is why one cannot avoid talking about evidence and facts when talking about scientific theories.
However, you seemed to think I disagreed with you about what constitutes scientific evidence, whereas it appears to me as if our viewpoints rather coincide on that matter. Where we differ is our viewpoints on what constitutes a scientific theory. To illustrate the difference, I'll use Wikipedia's definition of a scientific theory:
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
I've highlighted the part where we appear to disagree. As far as I can make out, you only consider a theory scientific if it can be tested through experiments, which rules out macro-evolution, astronomy, and all the other disciplines you consider as being "pseudo-science". On the other hand, I consider a theory valid even if it cannot be tested through experiments, so long as it can be falsified through empirical observation, which means that I view macro-evolution etc. as being very much scientific.
Is my summation of our respective viewpoints on science accurate?
There are more meanings to word "corporate" than you think. A hint: "scientific community" is a corporation.
When there are multiple meanings of a word, shouldn't you be specific as to which one you mean? Your sentences are sometimes rather ambiguous and prone to misinterpretation.
I think something happened also to your abilities to read. I said:
There is no logic in your advocacy of mountains of pseudo-science.
As I said before, your sentences are often ambiguous and misleading. Since I have not touched upon my own viewpoint of the scientific method, aside from imply that I consider astronomy and evolution as sciences, I do not see how you could evaluate its internal logic. Is it any wonder, then, that I assumed you meant something different?
My logic is very simple: if you cannot reproduce the fact, or observe it repeatedly, it is not a fact, it is not objective knowledge. Your logic is: many people think this way. To each its own.
Your use of the word "logic" is imprecise. Your characterisation of my position is incorrect. But putting these aside, you've now turned the argument to evidence and facts, and I was under the impression we were debating theories.
There doesn't seem to be anything in your definition of objective knowledge that differs from the norm, but I fail to see how it is relevant. For instance, if one uses a mass spectrometer to measure the ratio of uranium to lead in a sample of zircon, one can say, the ratio of uranium to lead is X. This experiment can be repeated multiple times, and the results observed. This seems to adhere to your definition of objective knowledge.
Your problem appears to be not with facts, but the interpretation of facts in theories. One can use the uranium-lead ratio to estimate the age of a sample of rock based on the half-life of uranium, and from there one can theorize that the Earth is billions of years old.
Likewise, if you keep finding fossils which appear to be species X, in a particular strata of rock, Y, you can say that N fossils that look like species X have been found in Y. From this fact, you can theorize that a species of animal X, lived at a certain time in the past. Using uranium-lead dating, one can further theorize that species X lived so many millions of years ago. Again, your problem appears not to be anything to do with facts, but with the theories that come from these facts.
At least, this is what I had come to understand as your position. Is this incorrect?
My views on science are common. They just do not get into mainstream solely for the corporate reasons. "Scientific community" does not want to become less scientific. That is it. And there is nothing more to that.
Your sentence is difficult to parse. Are you accusing the Nobel foundation of commercialism?
You somehow are trying to get the aroma of objectivity to the stinking situation of greed that highjacked the science since its glorious days.
Glorious days? And how far back were they, exactly? You do realise how entwined astronomy, one of your so-called "pseudo-sciences", is with the beginning of modern scientific thought, don't you? Perhaps you could enlighten me and point out these "glorious days", back when science was unsmirched by Newton's seedy commercialism, and free from the corporate greed of that money-grubbing Darwin.
Besides, I seem to recall you pointing out that advances in astronomy and other similar sciences have little practical use. Why would greedy people waste their money funding sciences that have no practical, and hence no financial, benefit? If there is greed in science, wouldn't one expect it to be focused on those sciences that show a practical benefit, such as pharmaceuticals and chemistry? Surely corporate greed would reduce funding in your "pseudo-sciences", rather than increase it?
There is none. There is no logic in your advocacy of mountains of pseudo-science.
I presume this is a metaphor of some kind, since clearly logic is used by cosmologists, astronomers, geologists and so forth. But if it is a metaphor, what does it exactly mean? Why is your set of axioms any more logical than those of the mainstream?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that there are sometimes compatibility issues with complex Javascript, but I think you overexaggerate Javascript's flaws.
As a language, Javascript is simple, but has a very rich featureset. The standard libraries allow it to interface with the DOM of a HTML page. The only significant problem I can think of is Javascript's lack of thread control structures, which may prove problematic for applications that handle complicated asynchronous events.
I'm not sure why you think Javascript is "being used for ridiculous things that it was never really designed for", as it's a rather generic scripting language, and its standard library is small and to the point. Could you give an example of some of Javascript's perceived shortfalls?
But as I've made clear, I accept that under your definition, macro-evolution probably cannot be considered a science. Thus, any further discussion on this subject can only deal with the common definition, because that appears to be the only thing we disagree on. Unless you agree that macro-evolution qualifies as a scientific theory under the common definition of the term, but in which case, what are we arguing about? :)
"Majority" is not enough for scientific theory, it should be "consensus", and, well, it should be scientific.Fair enough, although nothing in the Wikipedia definition says that there has to be a consensus, so presumably this argument draws from your own definition, and hence is a moot point.
Do you have any imaginary repeatable experiments in the controlled environment for macroevolution theory at the current time that would falsify macroevolution?Nothing that would appear to adhere to your viewpoint on falsifiability, nor am I interested in pursuing such an argument. If you wish to restrict your definition of science beyond the norm, that's up to you. I'm merely arguing that macro-evolution, according to the common viewpoints on science, easily qualifies as a scientific theory.
Any arguments based on your personal philosophy is pointless, since I already agree that your macro-evolution doesn't qualify as a scientific theory under your particular definition of that term. Either we argue solely upon the commonly accepted definition on the term, or we have already reached consensus.
I do not nitpick intentionally. I am merely trying to understand what you mean by the words you use. For instance, you've used the phrase "existing theory", and by this I first assumed you meant, "a theory that exists". Thus, if I state a theory, it exists because I have stated it, and therefore is an existing theory. However, you appear to mean something different, and I am unsure quite what this meaning is.
Perhaps you mean "a theory accepted by the majority", but due to your earlier arguments about the irrelevance of the majority, I'd venture to think that this is not the case. Perhaps, then, you mean "a theory that has not been falsified", but again you've pointed out that invalidating a theory doesn't make it any less a theory. Maybe you mean "a theory that has not been falsified for a period of time", but if so, how does one define the length of that time period?
You see the problem? It's not that I'm nitpicking on purpose, it's that you use words whose meaning I cannot even begin to guess at.
I gave you my definitions of science. You have yours. Your definition of science is shared by "scientific community" which you seem to accept as some kind of authority that make this definition valid. Fine.No, you're misunderstanding me. Let me make this perfectly clear. Neither of our definitions of science is any more valid than the other. So long as a system is logically consistent, the philosophical axioms its based upon cannot be said to be more valid than any other.
My issue is that if your definition is sufficiently different from the majority's, this should be stated at the outset. Consider the following argument:
"Cats typically hunt in packs."
"No they aren't; most cats hunt individually."
And is counterpart:
"I define the word "cat" to refer to the canine family of animals. This differs from the normal use of the word, but is no less valid. I assert that cats typically hunt in packs."
"I agree with that assertion."
It is not that I think that the definition of the majority is any more valid, merely that if you are going to stray from common definitions you should at least tell people such.
I don't think many /.ers see this as a religious question. Instead, it's more a case that they don't consider the science classroom an appropriate place to teach Intelligent Design, as ID is not a scientific theory.
Of course there is; I proposed just such a theory a couple of threads ago. Furthermore, it adheres precisely to the definition of a scientific theory:
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.It may be completely wrong, and there may be tonnes of evidence that disproves it, but that doesn't make it any less a theory. It describes the interaction of a set of natural phenomena (i.e. photons), is capable of predicting future observations (incorrectly, but nothing in the definition deals with correctness), and is capable of being falsified through experiment.
Thus, it is an existing scientific theory. One that's demonstratively incorrect, perhaps, but no less a scientific theory because of it.
The theory that you need force to maintain a speed was scientific (wrong, but...).If you accept that a scientific theory is still a theory even if it is incorrect, why do you not consider my "slow photonic theory" to be a theory?
"First and foremost, because some development libraries depend on
libpng2-dev and others depend on libpng3-dev; since these two packages
can *not* be installed at the same time, this means you have to install
and deinstall not only libpng2-dev and libpng3-dev but also a bunch of
other -dev packages which depend on those.
" You realise that libpng2-dev and libpng3-dev are just the development packages, don't you? They're only required when you want to compile something that needs the header files included in the packages. The binary packages of libpng2 and libpng3 (at least in Woody and Sarge) use different files, so there appears to be no reason why they cannot be installed on the same system.
If by that you mean that the theory has been disproved, then of course you are correct. However, you didn't specify that as a requisite; you merely say that the event should "not falsify other independently existing theories". Just because a theory has been shown to be incorrect, doesn't prevent it being considered a theory.
Second, at the time of Newton, when mechanics was not developed yet, the law that in order for a body to maintain a speed it needs a resulting force in that direction did not contradict existing theories.That's a curious statement. Are you saying that a theory that has been disproved is no longer a theory? Or are saying that whether or not something is considered a theory depends on the knowledge available at the time it is first thought of?
My point was that it was not at not clear why they were not accepted.
That is why for falsifiability you need to present an event that would not falsify other independently existing theories. Do you agree with that?No, because such a requisite would invalidate the majority, if not all, scientific theories. For instance, observing a photon travelling at 5 m/s in a vacuum would invalidate Special Relativity; however, it would also invalidate the theory that photons travel at 6 m/s, and the theory that photons travel at 7 m/s. For any event that can be observed, one can produce a large number of independent theories that would be invalidated by it.
There are reasons other than bloat for separating out dependencies. For instance, say a vulnerability was reported in zlib. If every application had their own implementation of zlib, then one would have to replace zlib for every application. A shared library doesn't have this problem; it can be upgraded without problems so long as it remains backward compatible. Compartmentalising functionality is common practise in the open source world.
However, there are various file distribution systems available for Linux that include dependency files with the application. Klik, for instance, wraps up applications in a self-contained compressed filesystem. However, the problem with modern Linux distributions is not so much dependencies, but a lack of a common method of installing software.
Secondly, there are situations where a break is neater and more concise than ending the loop via a condition. Compare: To: Further, many languages have the notion of a foreach block, where one cannot introduce further conditions without resorting to a classic for loop. Compare: To: Finally, some languages don't even have a concept of a for-loop, so you have a choice between this: Or this: And with prototype.js, you can combine a the functionality of a filter and a map using a continue: Okay, so you got me on the last one; it's an exception masquerading as a continue statement
Let's clarify exactly why you don't accept that the macro-evolution-earth theory is falsifiable, because from my perspective, it seems far from clear.
In order to falsify a theory, it needs to be possible, at least in principle, for one to make a set of empirical observations that would be highly improbable to have observed if the theory were correct.
For instance, if the macro-evolution-earth theory were correct, it would be highly improbable to discover the words "Made by Zod" printed upon every living being. This would be an empirical observation, and according to theory it would be highly improbable. Hence, the macro-evolution-earth is falsifiable, at least in principle, and thus it is a scientific theory.
And I as have proven it to you, only "on Earth" part is falsifiable.
Good, because that's all I'm arguing for.
I accept that one cannot disprove the hypothesis that life evolved elsewhere and was transported to Earth, any more than one can disprove the Intelligent Design hypothesis. All I'm interested in is the falsifiability of macro-evolution occurring on Earth. Since you appear to accept that, it would seem we have reached consensus.
I'm glad you agree. Dissing other people's religions and ideologies is an important part of free speech.
Yeah yeah, I know--all Christians are pigheaded morons who take the bible literally.You're setting up a straw man. The OP merely implied that Christianity was akin to believing in a fairy tale; it does not automatically follow that the OP believes all Christians take the Bible literally.
And moreover, their whole religion is a fairy tale.That is what the OP said.
See because, it's OK for you to hate and belittle their religion, while at the same time damning all the Christian believers for being bigots.When did the OP say he hated Christianity? When did the OP damn Christians as being bigots?
I guess it's OK to be a bigot, as long as you're not Christian.But it's not okay to present a flimsy straw man, constructed through torturous leaps of illogic, as somehow being a valid argument. Lose that persecution complex, and quit putting words in people's mouths.
But none of those examples appear to make any sense. For instance, you say:
If the Earth would be 10,000 yr old, it won't disprove that macro-evolution was wrong, it only disprove the fact that life existed on this planet for longer.We've already established that science works with probabilities, and that falsification equates to observing a collection of evidence that would be highly improbable if the theory were true.
Secondly, the probability that macro-evolution produced all the present species on Earth in one billion years, is significantly higher than the probability that it produced all the species on Earth a mere 10'000 years ago. And going further still, it is unlikely in the extreme that it occurred a mere 100 years ago.
The logical conclusion from the above two paragraphs is that if the old Earth theory is falsifiable, then macro-evolution on Earth is falsifiable. In order to argue against this, one must disagree with one of the two statements that lead to this conclusion. Either you disagree with the definition of falsification I provided, or you consider macro-evolution occurring in a 100 year timespan no less likely than macro-evolution occurring in a one billion year timespan.
The rebuttal to this fact would be: "then life evolved on a different planet and was transfered here".Yes, but that's entirely beside the point. As I clearly stated in my last post, I'm arguing that the theory that life originated through macro-evolution on Earth is falsifiable. If we had evidence life evolved on another planet and was transferred here, that would falsify my theory. Again, all I'm arguing for is that the falsifiability of the theory that macro-evolution, taking place on this planet, was the mechanism that produced every species on Earth.
This argument is seriously considered valid for the origin of primordial organic life, why not for the origins of ALL life?One would have to specify the mechanism for it to be a valid theory, otherwise one couldn't falsify the theory. If the mechanism was "Omnipotent aliens who would leave absolutely no evidence of their involvement", then there'd clearly be a problem. But if the mechanism was, "Aliens in huge nuclear powered spaceships", then we'd expect to find evidence of large amounts of nuclear activity, fossilized landing marks, and so forth; and the absence of such evidence would disprove the theory.
You could make the same argument about 'break'. However, whilst one can simulate the functionality of 'continue', or 'break', or even 'return' with goto, each of these keywords is significantly more specialised and limited in scope. Equating the disadvantages of goto with continue is just silly.
One could get around this problem simply by restricting the effects of the overrides to a subset of classes. For instance, one could restrict it to a certain namespace, or a certain application domain. I should point out that the JVM-based language Nice allows one to override existing methods without incompatibility issues with standard class files, so it's quite possible to have the functionality described without compromising security.
No animal intentionally lives in harmony with their environment. The only reason humans are causing a mass extinction rather than any other animal, is because we're considerably more efficient, so much so that we're in a different league entirely to other animals. The reason we're having problems is because of our success as a predator; we have to reign in our power considerably in order to prevent the destruction of the environment around us. Few species are capable of such restraint.
Then that would falsify the theory that macro-evolution is the mechanism responsible for life on all planets. However, your hypothetical planet doesn't falsify the theory that macro-evolution is responsible for life on this planet, and that's what I'm arguing for. When I speak of macro-evolution, I'm referring to the origin of species on Earth. One cannot disprove that macro-evolution hasn't taken place elsewhere in the Universe, but one can, in principle, disprove that it occurred here on Earth.
As I pointed out, this is probably not a common view. Both Wikipedia and I adhere to a different definition, and it is likely that this is the most commonly accepted definition, for reasons I've already covered.
Macro-evolution is not dealing with repeatable observations.One can observe readings from a mass spectrometer, and observe them repeatedly, for many different samples. I've already explained how readings from a mass spectrometer could, in principle, act as evidence toward the falsification of the old Earth theory, and hence, macro-evolution. Thus, macro-evolution does deal with repeatable observations, or, to be more precise, it is possible to use repeatable observations to falsify macro-evolution.
Your falsifiability arguments on Special relativity are all repeatable. The kind of arguments your type would be using for Special relativity would be: "speed of light is not 5m/s, but 300,000km/s", "alpha is 1/127, not 1/255, here is for you". I am speechless at this point.I am uncertain quite what you mean by this. However, if one observed a photon travelling at 5m/s in a vacuum, that would certainly count against Special Relativity. This in turn implies that Special Relativity is falsifiable, because it is possible, at least in principle, that one could observe a photon doing something Special Relativity says it cannot do. For the purposes of falsification, it doesn't matter how fast our hypothetical photon is travelling, so long as it's speed != c.
There appear to be two problems with your argument, which are either logical flaws or a misinterpretation of what the discussion involves. Consider the definition from Wikipedia:
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
And then your assertion concerning the nature of falsification:
Now it should be clear why the quoted statement is wrong. The falsification should be a repeatable experiment. The Earth being billion years old (again, I am not speaking whether it is fact or not, I am assuming that it is a fact for the sake of point) is not a repeatable experiment. This is just one fact.
You appear to be arguing from your own definition of a scientific theory, where falsification can only be achieved through experimentation. The Wikipedia definition is more broad: a theory can be falsified through experiments, "or otherwise falsified through empirical observation". Wikipedia creates a clear distinction between experimentation, and empirical observation. If we now turn to the definition of "empirical", we find two distinct meanings:
A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.
In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation.
Since there was a clear distinction between "tested through experiment" and "empirical observation", we must be dealing with the first meaning of the term "empirical". Thus, according to the definition of Wikipedia, all that is needed to falsify a theory is evidence that is "observable by the senses". When I speak of repeated observations, I mean just that; not repeated experiments, but repeated observations.
Thus, the most common way of defining a scientific theory is to include theories that rely on empirical evidence, even if that evidence is not gained through repeatable experimentation. If you wish to hold a different definition, that's up to you, but using the commonly accepted definition, falsification does not necessarily require repeatable experimentation.
Now I've clarified that point a little, on to the second flaw/misinterpretation:
And why you assume that billion years old is enough? Where is the limit? Would you say that Earth being 1billion years old would falsify macro-evolution?
I cannot hazard a guess as to why you consider this line of reasoning valid. We're discussing falsification, not verification. It surely doesn't matter where the limit is, so long as the chosen figure of 10'000 years is within bounds.
For instance, say I have a hypothesis, where 2x < 10 is true for all x, where x is a member of the natural numbers. In order to falsify this, all I require is an instance where 2x >= 10. The smallest value of x that will falsify this is obviously 5, but for the purposes of falsification I could use 50, 943, or even 200'000'000. The limit itself is irrelevant, so long as my choice of x is not beyond it.
Thus, whilst 1 billion years may or may not be enough time for a diverse array of species to evolve on Earth, that's completely irrelevant to the process of falsification. All that matters is that 10'000 years is sufficiently within the limit, and I doubt you'd find any biologist who'd claim that it was feasible for macro-evolution to produce all the species on Earth within 10'000 years. And even if it was, I could just lower the limit to 5'000, or 4'000; all that matters is that there is a limit, and that it's possible to pick a span of time
Macro-evolution is not falsifiable. We did not agree on that.
Fair enough. First of all, lets be clear that observation of the Universe is imprecise. Not only can their be problems with one's measuring instruments, it's also quite possible that your results are a fluke. If this were not the case, there'd be no need to make repeated observations. Thus, science relies on probabilities. We cannot be 100% certain of a piece of evidence, in the same way we can be absolutely certain of a mathematical theorem. But we can be 99% certain, or 99.9% certain, or even 99.9999% certain, depending on how good our instruments are, how often we repeat the observation, and under what circumstances it is repeated.
Thus, when one speaks of falsifying a theory, what one means is to reduce the margin of error to sufficiently low levels. We cannot prove absolutely that all our measurements are correct, but we can take enough measurements to demonstrate that it is extremely unlikely that the theory in question is true.
Secondly, the theory of macro-evolution, like many other theories, depends on a number of conditions. For instance, if the Earth were merely 10'000 years old, there would be insufficient time for complex species to evolve. Or, to be more precise, it is incredibly unlikely that we could go from molecular proto-life to multicellular organisms within a mere 100 centuries. Therefore, we can create a dependency from the age of the Earth, to the theory of macro-evolution. I'll again reiterate my point: this is not a precise dependency, in the same way that a mathematical proof can be shown to be exactly dependent on a number of axioms. Instead, it is a dependency based on probability; it is not impossible that billions of species could arise in 10'000 years, but such a possibility is unlikely in the extreme, and below the threshold of evidence normally required in scientific research.
The Earth's age, in turn, is dependent on a further set of theories. We observe the half-life of certain elements in the laboratory, and thus we would expect to see evidence of that decay outside the laboratory. We use triangulation to fix the distance of stars, and using Relativity we work out how long the light has been travelling for. Relativity in turn has been the result of many experiments, and thus we go down a long chain of interconnecting theories held up by the weight of a vast collection of evidence collected over the centuries.
If a majority of this evidence were to contradict the idea of an old Earth; for instance, if all the stars we could see were only 10'000 lightyears away, and all the radioactive decay measured in rocks indicated that they were created 10'000 years ago, and if sedimentary rocks were rare and shallow, and numerous other things, then these individual observations would start to stack up. What is the probability of Earth being old, if a vast amount of evidence would suggest otherwise? Given enough evidence that would appear to suggest otherwise, you're eventually going to reach the tipping point, and the theory of an old Earth, and hence the theory of macro-evolution, becomes so improbable as to be considered impossible, and thus the theory is shown to be false.
Indeed, macro-evolution is not particularly special in this regard. For instance, you're probably aware that Special Relativity predicts a time dilation effect when particles accelerate to high velocities, and that in 1971 an experiment was conducted where four caesium atomic beam clocks were flown around the world, once westward and once eastward, on commercial jet flights. The results of the experiment showed the time dilation effects Einstein predicted, but these results were based upon the measurements of the caesium atomic beam clocks, and their accuracy is in turn based upon subsequent theories regarding particles, electromagnetism and atomic interaction, and a whole host of other theories. Any complex theory relies on simpler theories to provide potential falsification. But because these theor
However, you seemed to think I disagreed with you about what constitutes scientific evidence, whereas it appears to me as if our viewpoints rather coincide on that matter. Where we differ is our viewpoints on what constitutes a scientific theory. To illustrate the difference, I'll use Wikipedia's definition of a scientific theory:
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.I've highlighted the part where we appear to disagree. As far as I can make out, you only consider a theory scientific if it can be tested through experiments, which rules out macro-evolution, astronomy, and all the other disciplines you consider as being "pseudo-science". On the other hand, I consider a theory valid even if it cannot be tested through experiments, so long as it can be falsified through empirical observation, which means that I view macro-evolution etc. as being very much scientific.
Is my summation of our respective viewpoints on science accurate?
When there are multiple meanings of a word, shouldn't you be specific as to which one you mean? Your sentences are sometimes rather ambiguous and prone to misinterpretation.
I think something happened also to your abilities to read. I said: There is no logic in your advocacy of mountains of pseudo-science.As I said before, your sentences are often ambiguous and misleading. Since I have not touched upon my own viewpoint of the scientific method, aside from imply that I consider astronomy and evolution as sciences, I do not see how you could evaluate its internal logic. Is it any wonder, then, that I assumed you meant something different?
My logic is very simple: if you cannot reproduce the fact, or observe it repeatedly, it is not a fact, it is not objective knowledge. Your logic is: many people think this way. To each its own.Your use of the word "logic" is imprecise. Your characterisation of my position is incorrect. But putting these aside, you've now turned the argument to evidence and facts, and I was under the impression we were debating theories.
There doesn't seem to be anything in your definition of objective knowledge that differs from the norm, but I fail to see how it is relevant. For instance, if one uses a mass spectrometer to measure the ratio of uranium to lead in a sample of zircon, one can say, the ratio of uranium to lead is X. This experiment can be repeated multiple times, and the results observed. This seems to adhere to your definition of objective knowledge.
Your problem appears to be not with facts, but the interpretation of facts in theories. One can use the uranium-lead ratio to estimate the age of a sample of rock based on the half-life of uranium, and from there one can theorize that the Earth is billions of years old.
Likewise, if you keep finding fossils which appear to be species X, in a particular strata of rock, Y, you can say that N fossils that look like species X have been found in Y. From this fact, you can theorize that a species of animal X, lived at a certain time in the past. Using uranium-lead dating, one can further theorize that species X lived so many millions of years ago. Again, your problem appears not to be anything to do with facts, but with the theories that come from these facts.
At least, this is what I had come to understand as your position. Is this incorrect?
Your sentence is difficult to parse. Are you accusing the Nobel foundation of commercialism?
You somehow are trying to get the aroma of objectivity to the stinking situation of greed that highjacked the science since its glorious days.Glorious days? And how far back were they, exactly? You do realise how entwined astronomy, one of your so-called "pseudo-sciences", is with the beginning of modern scientific thought, don't you? Perhaps you could enlighten me and point out these "glorious days", back when science was unsmirched by Newton's seedy commercialism, and free from the corporate greed of that money-grubbing Darwin.
Besides, I seem to recall you pointing out that advances in astronomy and other similar sciences have little practical use. Why would greedy people waste their money funding sciences that have no practical, and hence no financial, benefit? If there is greed in science, wouldn't one expect it to be focused on those sciences that show a practical benefit, such as pharmaceuticals and chemistry? Surely corporate greed would reduce funding in your "pseudo-sciences", rather than increase it?
There is none. There is no logic in your advocacy of mountains of pseudo-science.I presume this is a metaphor of some kind, since clearly logic is used by cosmologists, astronomers, geologists and so forth. But if it is a metaphor, what does it exactly mean? Why is your set of axioms any more logical than those of the mainstream?