It sounds like utter bs, but let me play devil's advocate for a second.
If by observing, you mean changing the quantum state in some way (like say, passing the particles through a magnetic field to measure their spin), and if, for some reason, those particles are entangled to particles that exist in the supernova, then you would be able to change the quantum state of a bunch of particles at the source via that "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein discovered. This is something that would (probably) not occur if the particles just smacked into the Earth's magnetic field...
...maybe.
But this is stretching -- we're only talking about a few particles in a freakin' supernova. I really think it's most likely that the reporter didn't understand what he was being told.
The higher-ups in education took a look around, and what did they see?
- A worthless administration that, if not elected outright twice in a row, at the very least garnished about half the country's vote.
- A "museum" in Kansas that teaches a complete disrespect for reason and the scientific process
- A world edging closer to a runaway greenhouse effect, with nonacceptance of this fact by an enormously technophobic populous
- A society who's scientific literacy is on par with that of a very stupid 5-yr old
They probably thought "we need to make this stuff more accessible." Knowledge has always been free, but so have reality-tv shows, and those get pumped into your living room every day. Compared to that convenience, the ominous stacks of non-interactive books at the library seem very far indeed, particularly for those who are not education-inclined to begin with.
This is a good thing. A little late for a good thing. But a good thing nonetheless.
I'm glad you know your ICs, that's very useful. I'm not familiar with what's out there, but I
have a handle on using them. This one looks really good. The price is going up now
though...
-- HM55B ($30)
-- Basic 2 Microcontroller ($50)
-- Carrier Board to test the circuit (either Serial or USB) ($65)
-- Other equipment (USB or serial cable + wires + 9Vs) (~$20?)
** Total Estimate: $165
Once it's configured, the programming should be simple. Sample the angle from the board, and
use a series of IF statements to turn on the correct motor:
IF Angle (less than) 20 Then
___HIGH 6 (puts the vibrator on pin 6 on)
___LOW (everything else)
ELSEIF Angle (less than) 40 Then
___HIGH 7
___LOW (everything else)
and so on...
I disagree about the pulsing. I think the idea of the article is that your brain can make sense (haha, get it?) of a constant input by converting it to a "6th" sense. I would suggest constant buzzing, but at a low voltage (just enough to produce tactile sensation). After a few weeks your body (supposedly, if we believe the article) adjusts and stops recognizing it as a "touch" but instead nulls it out and interprets it as a "direction."
The 1490 is nice, and much more simple to wire than the one I posted, but we should be aware of these things:
1) It has a 12-degree tilt limit for accuracy. Is that acceptable? That's seems fairly small. Mounting errors could be as high as ±10 degrees for a belt (maybe even worse?). Go on a slight incline and all of a sudden it stops working...
2) The spec sheet warns that it's particularly hard to hand-solder the unit without doing irreversible damage (from the heat).
3) It takes 8 to 13 DC volts to power... so I'm guessing a 9V battery (or a few in parallel) will work.
4) The output logic will have to use ANDs,ORs, or Op-Amps to select the correct vibrator based on the signal.
5) The reaction time from a 90-deg displacement is 2.5 to 3.5 seconds. That's probably enough resolution for most of the day -- but if you're running around or playing sports that won't be good enough.
That's all I can think of for now. Maybe we should start a Yahoo group or something.... get some circuit diagrams posted and start hacking at it...
I think I'm going to try making that North-buzzing belt. All it takes is an electronic compass, some vibrators, a belt and some controller logic.
A quick Google search came up with: Electronic Compass for $5 Vibrators for $1 each.
The belt and the controller can't be that expensive. You could probably do the whole thing for under $30, even accounting for frying a few ICs trying to get it to work. Right?
Am I an ubernerd or does this sound ridiculously cool to anyone else?
"and reinforcing the idea that the next attack is coming, even though there is no need for a next attack, because the first one is STILL doing it's job."
I never understood this distinction between micro- and macro-.
If you have a species, split it in two, and geographically (or otherwise) isolate the two identical groups, then shouldn't several milleniu of micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? After a certain point, the two groups would not be able to reproduce with each other. You don't even need to develop complete sexual incompatibility -- horses and donkeys provide a good example of reproductive isolation while still being very similar.
Yeah except that a nuke in a vaccuum is a pretty mundane event. Think mini-star. The plume effect and shockwaves all come from superheating the air -- which wouldn't work up there. I imagine a nuke on the moon would look like a great big stadium light for about one and a half seconds, and then just leave some nice radiation-cooked moondust near where it was.
I think it's a little unfair to say the United States does badly, because you're assuming a linear relationship between population and expected results, which is dubious at best...
It's easier to find and train 5 Gold-Medal Olympians in a pool of 100 than 25 in a pool of 500. Chances are, the difficultly level in terms of finding and training qualified candidates does not span linearly. Compare the United States to countries of similar size, and what do you get? You have to cut the population by 5 times (ironically, to France) before anyone of similar size even comes close to beating the US per capita. On ITS level, the US is dominating. (You have to cut the population by a factor of 56 to get to Finland!!!)
These stats imply that you think the US should be winning something between 5 and 56 times the medals it already does in order to move up in rank (assuming they're won "from" other, lower-ranking countries), but this is near impossible unless she dominated every single event. If the only competitors were the US and Finland, of the 9,877 total medals of all Olympics, the US would have had to win 9706 (and Finland only 171) for them to be "tied" in your mind. That's over 98% of the medals?! Finland could devote its resources to being the master of only 7 events per each Olympic cycle and the US would have to dominate the rest of the world in the other ~400 events for them to be considered "equal" by you!?
It's apples and oranges, mate. The US is in the Heavyweight category, and within that category she is the clear dominator.
Ever watch the Olympics? The U.S. always wins WAY more golds than it should percentage-wise. Is anyone going to argue that this is because American genes are just *that* much more superior than the rest of the world? Unless you're Jerry Falwell, you don't make stupid statements like that.
It's because America has top-notch gyms and training equipment, allowing more people with natural talent to be able to develop their talents to the extreme.
Cntrl-C, Cntrl-V this idea into an intellectual bucket, and you get the point of the article. Environment is critical to "geniusness".
omfg tradewars! haha! That spawned a long lost memory in me...
I remember back in the 'ol days I had a RIME address - that was effectively my email. I also still have the box from my 9600 modem. It's painfully funny...
New 9600 Baud Modem is BLAZINGLY FAST!
- No more waiting for (text?) files to download!
- Over 9 KILOBYTES PER SECOND! (WoW!)
I understand where you're coming from, but I might be inclined to side with the parent on this one. She was in a better position to judge her child's resultant actions from the game, and decided to have him making weird sword-wielding or magic-casting motions instead of hopping on some wheeled wood.
Now, when her son is a 300-lb online RPG addict, paying real money for WoW gold, killing real people for the imaginery +12 Warlord Sword, or simply dying of a heart failure in an internet cafe in Korea, then she'll realize that going with the skateboard and pads would have been the healthier choice.;)
No. Your paraphrasing of my argument is incorrect, and therefore its criticism, though internally sound, does not apply.
The statement:
your argument:
P1) if one has knowledge then that knowledge is correct(certain)
is actually not what I was arguing.
You assumed that because I criticized the notion of universal doubt, that I advocate universal certainty. I don't. What I said was question everything you have a reason to question.
Now, you stated I think there is enough reason to question evolution, enough reason to research alternatives anyway..., so I have no problem with you questioning it - but your reasons must be rational. (You don't question that when you drop a coin, it will fall towards the ground, just because it's "possible", in some strange twisted way, that this time it will shoot upwards towards the sky!) You must have reasonable doubt (i.e. evidence of some sort that doesn't fit with the theory). A "hunch" or "opinion" that a theory is wrong is fairly irrational without any evidence to back it up. You might just as well state you question if the Earth is REALLY round, or if all those NASA pictures are just faked. (Don't laugh, people still do this)
I don't think creationism (or any religion-based theory, for that matter) counts as reasonable doubt. As you stated, these theories are concerned with the (unprovable in principle) "ultimate truth". Further, the discrediting of evolution would not boost these theories one bit. I could say that magical elves are responsible for the diversity of life, and this "theory", being unprovable, is equivalent to any other supernatural theory. There are literally an infinite number of possibilities, so creating a false dichotomy between evolution and creationism is wrong. If evolution is wrong, then it is wrong, and nothing else. For a theory to be "right," it must have some solid predictions or, even more important, falsifiability. The "God of the Gaps" idea (where "god" is used to "explain" everything we currently don't understand completely) is tireless and old, and has caused enormous embarassment for all religions once their "unexplainable" events actually became explained.
Finally, there is a theory of evolution and a fact of evolution. The fact of evolution is based on 3 simple observations:
1) The geological record of fossils starts in time with simple, single-celled life and ends with complex life.
2) Complex life can only come from other complex life, and not be suddenly created from a rock.
3) However, children are not necessarily exactly like their parents. Mutations and adaptations occur, causing the gene pool to diversify.
Given these observations, the conclusion is obvious - simple life must have "evolved" into complex life, through a series of adaptations, mutations, or some other gene-diversifying process. This is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution (or natural selection) is a description of the processes and methods that support this fact. Even if the theory were wrong, it would have to be replaced with another theory that explained the evolution of simple life into complex life. Or there would have to be some overwhelming evidence to suggest that one of the 3 fundamental observations are wrong (for example, a demonstration of a rock or banana changing magically into a monkey.)
On a final note, religion was the biggest opponent to both the Round Earth and the "Earth goes around the Sun" theories. The flat earth was questioned once "scientists" of that day noticed the shape of a lunar eclipse shadow (it looked like what a sphere would produce) and how you could observe a ship's mast in the distance before seeing the actual ship (indicating a curved surface). They had evidence that did not fit the current theory, so they questioned it. Without evidence, questioning everything is the same as conspiracy theories and paranoia -- it is irrational. I stand by my original statement, question o
I can agree that without counterevidence, ID or any other theory/model is not really a science-based model.... I don't think we're that far off from each other's viewpoint on theory, just on the scientific merits of ID as a theory.
1) Agreed.
2) Interesting...(the bit about the scarcity and increased diversification rate). However, there is a slight nuance here... it ties in with my next point so I'll withhold for now.
3) You are correct, the difference is in the Givens, and this is actually my fundamental "beef" with the ID hypothesis. Let me hold off till the next though, because I basically agree with everything you say except one fundamental point.
4) Ok. I understand what you are saying. (I think). Let me summarize: You are saying that populations have to rack up a significant number of mutations before finding anything beneficial, then have to go through a significant number of generations before that beneficial trait is common, then repeat that process a significant number of times before that beneficial trait becomes something entirely new, such as a wing or an eye, then go through this process a significant number of times to actually become a new species, and enough populations must undergo this to account for all the diversity of life today. Then, based on certain assumptions about the rates of mutation, the rates of adoption of new traits, the incremental "step" you get with each, and the rate of speciation, you (ID) consider it impossible or highly improbable that natural processes alone account for the evolution of simple life into all the diverse complex life, as observed in the strata. Instead, there must be some guiding force, whose methods are inexplicable in principle (because they are un-natural, or supernatural).
Now, if I have that correct, here is my beef:
The first beef, which is superficial, is that ID does not stake itself on these claims. In other words, if ID were to be a scientifically respectable theory, as I define theory, it would basically say:
a) Given the mutation rate is lower than x, and
b) Given the acceptance-into-population-of-traits rate is lower than y, and
c) Given the speciation rate is z... etc etc...
, then this calculation (*insert calc here*) shows that the rate of the proposed evolutionary theory is too slow to account for the diversity of life as we know it.
By commiting itself to givens, ID would be falsifiable if its givens (the rates of mutation and such) could be demonstrated to be higher than assumed. This is what a legitamate criticism of evolution from a standpoint of probabilities looks like.
My second beef is with the Givens that ID does adopt. You say,
Given, all the observable universe is the byproduct of either supernatural or natural processes, or both."
This given is strange because it undercuts the endeavor, and follows in the standard "god of the gaps" kind of argument.
4a) It undercuts the endeavor when you realize the implications of what you're saying. Regular science says "Given (or Assuming) the observable universe is a byproduct of natural processes (understandable, explainable in principle), I will embark on a science to find those processes and document them."... ID, OTOH, states "Given (Assuming) the universe is partially or wholly supernatural (unexplainable, in principle!), I will embark on this science to explain it." In this sense, ID is wholly self-defeating. It posits a question (the universe needs explaining) that neither it nor any observable science, so long as it's confined to this one universe, can adequately explain! ID says there's an "Intelligent Designer" to account for the improbable, but what is the nature and methods of this designer? And how come he/she/it is not subject to the improbability problem themself? (surely the Designer could not have occured by chance!) If the
I wish I had mod points... parent has a good analysis.
The world has always contained too much information - computers and the internet have just allowed us to finally have access to it. We've reached a critical level of receiving information (that was always there, just not accessible), and from here on out society needs to work on filtering/categorizing/organizing/etc this information. There are too many books to read, movies to watch, music to listen to, and quack theories to debunk in a single lifetime. There always was, and there always will be. No possible suppression tactic, save global totalitarianism, will ever work.
What the world needs now...is filter, sweet filter.
Ok. I will. How did you arrive at this theory that man cannot be certain? Are you certain (lol) that humans cannot be certain, or is your theory also open to doubt?
You see, if you claim that your theory of "all knowledge is uncertain" is known for certain, then the conclusion refutes the premise! You are mired in your own hypocrisy and collapse under the weight of internal contradiction. Likewise, if your theory is also open to doubt, then on what reasons are you suggesting that we doubt all other theories? Are those reasons certain, or are they also open to doubt?
In one case your position is irrational, in the other it is inconsistent.
Just because man is capable of error doesn't mean that has definately commited an error in any particular case.
You must understand that the foundation of science was made BECAUSE man is capable of error. Science provides a method of determining truths about reality. This is the reason all good science is falsifiable in principle - it is based on man's need to have a METHOD to distinguish truth from fiction. By taking the very foundation of science (man's fallible nature), and arguing that because of that we can never know anything for sure, you're turning epistomolegy on it's head! It's irrational to use reason to argue against the use of reason for arriving at truths. That's like a man pretending to see clearly, that he and all other men are blind!
Question everything when you have a reason for doing so, not just for the sake of questioning.
I'm glad MS sued the hell out of this guy, and I hope they sue the hell out of others too. There's a mutual enemy here - because MS knows that if spam gets out of control, people will have even more of a negative reaction to online advertising than they do already. Negative reaction = no ad money.
In the end, I'd rather see google's contextual ads, or even MS's pretty ugly banner ads for legitimate companies, than John Doe's ads for enlarging various sexual members, reducing my mortgage, getting a fake diploma, or finding some local hooches to sleep with.
Scientists were eager to hook up the machine to a woman, with the hope that getting a glimpse of the female brain would make them millionaires. However, shortly after connecting it, the overloaded machine smoked and fizzled into nothingness. It seems the female mind will forever be unreadable by man or machine.
Wow. An intelligent volley from the other side. Please excuse my previous condescending tone - I
tend to debate this subject with theists who enjoy a less-than-respectable education in the
topic.
Let me respond with the numbers format we've gotten used to...
1) I disagree, but I believe I see the heart of our disagreement. You are correct: a theory can be a
rejection of a previous theory. However, my point was to state that it cannot ONLY be that. That
is, it must be more than just a disagreement with the original theory's conclusion. It must put
forth something different, a "better" explanation, and stake a claim on certain pieces of evidence
that would be compatible with one theory but incompatible with the other. So let me refine my
original statement: A theory cannot be ONLY an emphatic rejection of a previous theory - it must also
put forth something testable or falsifiable. Otherwise, it's just disagreement within a theory, but
not a whole new theory of its own.
2) As for testable predictions, there are numerous. I have been loose with my wording, as I intended
to say "falsifiability" - a trait common amongst all real sciences. Nevertheless, as far as
predictions go:
2a) Darwin correctly predicted that there must exist a moth with an 11-inch long tongue, after he
observed an orchid with an 11-inch long nectar-producing tube. (Tube is probably not the
scientifically accurate term, but you get the idea). 147 years after this prediction was made, it
was verified by scientists in Madagascar.
2b) I could list others, but the more important predictions are what evolution says you WON'T see.
Evolution says that you will never see a complex organism be produced from something simple or
inanimate in a single generation (such as a single celled ameoba producing a dog, or a rock somehow creating a rat). It
also states that you will never see a complex organism give birth to a completely different organism in a single generation
(such as a monkey producing a human in one generation.) Children must be similar (but not necessarily exact!) to
their parents. Finally, it says that you will never see an organ for which there is/was never any
use, either currently or in the past. (An example of this is a common trait in cave and deep sea
creatures existing in no-light environments. They are all blind and translucent, because sight and
coloration would not give any a particular reproductive advantage.)
2c) I have drawn (a few) of the falsifiability criteria for evolution. I humbly ask that you submit
what would disprove ID.
3) This is a strange refutation. You state that a better answer would be to say nothing about the
rock's origin, yet the theory you propose is explicitly centered around the origin (an "Intelligent
Designer"). Evolution, and science in general, is concerned with processes. Let me detail the basic
facts that brought about evolution: a) We observe the fossil record going from simple life to
complex life. b)We observe that complex organisms only come from other complex organisms.
c)We observe, however, that there are minor mutations, adaptations, and genetic differences in
organisms within a species.
Given those restrictions - the conclusion is obvious - simple
life must have somehow "evolved" into complex life through a series of adaptations and mutations.
That's the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution (or natural selection) is an
explanation of the process that feeds into this fact. Even if the theory were completely wrong, you
would have to replace it with another theory that describes the observed fact of evolution, or
provide evidence that undercuts the basic observations.
4) Dipping into philosophy is not really what I want to do, so I'll excuse myself from responding
(trying to stay on topic, but sometimes I ramble).
4 Sidenote): Now here I must emphatically disagree. This statement: "Macro-evolution might
propose that the appendix is an o
Slashdot Mirror
If by observing, you mean changing the quantum state in some way (like say, passing the particles through a magnetic field to measure their spin), and if, for some reason, those particles are entangled to particles that exist in the supernova, then you would be able to change the quantum state of a bunch of particles at the source via that "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein discovered. This is something that would (probably) not occur if the particles just smacked into the Earth's magnetic field...
But this is stretching -- we're only talking about a few particles in a freakin' supernova. I really think it's most likely that the reporter didn't understand what he was being told.
The higher-ups in education took a look around, and what did they see?
- A worthless administration that, if not elected outright twice in a row, at the very least garnished about half the country's vote.
- A "museum" in Kansas that teaches a complete disrespect for reason and the scientific process
- A world edging closer to a runaway greenhouse effect, with nonacceptance of this fact by an enormously technophobic populous
- A society who's scientific literacy is on par with that of a very stupid 5-yr old
They probably thought "we need to make this stuff more accessible." Knowledge has always been free, but so have reality-tv shows, and those get pumped into your living room every day. Compared to that convenience, the ominous stacks of non-interactive books at the library seem very far indeed, particularly for those who are not education-inclined to begin with.
This is a good thing. A little late for a good thing. But a good thing nonetheless.
Agreed then!
;)
I'm glad you know your ICs, that's very useful. I'm not familiar with what's out there, but I have a handle on using them. This one looks really good. The price is going up now though...
-- HM55B ($30)
-- Basic 2 Microcontroller ($50)
-- Carrier Board to test the circuit (either Serial or USB) ($65)
-- Other equipment (USB or serial cable + wires + 9Vs) (~$20?)
** Total Estimate: $165
Even though it's a lot pricier, this setup looks the best to me. The 55B comes with detailed instructions, a downloadable configuration program, and a free graphical interface to check it.
Once it's configured, the programming should be simple. Sample the angle from the board, and use a series of IF statements to turn on the correct motor:
IF Angle (less than) 20 Then
___HIGH 6 (puts the vibrator on pin 6 on)
___LOW (everything else)
ELSEIF Angle (less than) 40 Then
___HIGH 7
___LOW (everything else)
and so on...
Shouldn't be too hard... (famous last words?).
Awesome! A few comments...
I disagree about the pulsing. I think the idea of the article is that your brain can make sense (haha, get it?) of a constant input by converting it to a "6th" sense. I would suggest constant buzzing, but at a low voltage (just enough to produce tactile sensation). After a few weeks your body (supposedly, if we believe the article) adjusts and stops recognizing it as a "touch" but instead nulls it out and interprets it as a "direction."
The 1490 is nice, and much more simple to wire than the one I posted, but we should be aware of these things:
1) It has a 12-degree tilt limit for accuracy. Is that acceptable? That's seems fairly small. Mounting errors could be as high as ±10 degrees for a belt (maybe even worse?). Go on a slight incline and all of a sudden it stops working...
2) The spec sheet warns that it's particularly hard to hand-solder the unit without doing irreversible damage (from the heat).
3) It takes 8 to 13 DC volts to power... so I'm guessing a 9V battery (or a few in parallel) will work.
4) The output logic will have to use ANDs,ORs, or Op-Amps to select the correct vibrator based on the signal.
5) The reaction time from a 90-deg displacement is 2.5 to 3.5 seconds. That's probably enough resolution for most of the day -- but if you're running around or playing sports that won't be good enough.
That's all I can think of for now. Maybe we should start a Yahoo group or something.... get some circuit diagrams posted and start hacking at it...
I think I'm going to try making that North-buzzing belt. All it takes is an electronic compass, some vibrators, a belt and some controller logic.
A quick Google search came up with:
Electronic Compass for $5
Vibrators for $1 each.
The belt and the controller can't be that expensive. You could probably do the whole thing for under $30, even accounting for frying a few ICs trying to get it to work. Right?
Am I an ubernerd or does this sound ridiculously cool to anyone else?
"and reinforcing the idea that the next attack is coming, even though there is no need for a next attack, because the first one is STILL doing it's job."
Ouch. That stung. And yet, it's so true...
I never understood this distinction between micro- and macro-.
If you have a species, split it in two, and geographically (or otherwise) isolate the two identical groups, then shouldn't several milleniu of micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution? After a certain point, the two groups would not be able to reproduce with each other. You don't even need to develop complete sexual incompatibility -- horses and donkeys provide a good example of reproductive isolation while still being very similar.
Or am I missing something?
This is so true... I wish I could overmod you to +85(Identifies a Supreme Fact of Life)
Yeah except that a nuke in a vaccuum is a pretty mundane event. Think mini-star. The plume effect and shockwaves all come from superheating the air -- which wouldn't work up there. I imagine a nuke on the moon would look like a great big stadium light for about one and a half seconds, and then just leave some nice radiation-cooked moondust near where it was.
It's easier to find and train 5 Gold-Medal Olympians in a pool of 100 than 25 in a pool of 500. Chances are, the difficultly level in terms of finding and training qualified candidates does not span linearly. Compare the United States to countries of similar size, and what do you get? You have to cut the population by 5 times (ironically, to France) before anyone of similar size even comes close to beating the US per capita. On ITS level, the US is dominating. (You have to cut the population by a factor of 56 to get to Finland!!!)
These stats imply that you think the US should be winning something between 5 and 56 times the medals it already does in order to move up in rank (assuming they're won "from" other, lower-ranking countries), but this is near impossible unless she dominated every single event. If the only competitors were the US and Finland, of the 9,877 total medals of all Olympics, the US would have had to win 9706 (and Finland only 171) for them to be "tied" in your mind. That's over 98% of the medals?! Finland could devote its resources to being the master of only 7 events per each Olympic cycle and the US would have to dominate the rest of the world in the other ~400 events for them to be considered "equal" by you!?
It's apples and oranges, mate. The US is in the Heavyweight category, and within that category she is the clear dominator.
It's because America has top-notch gyms and training equipment, allowing more people with natural talent to be able to develop their talents to the extreme.
Cntrl-C, Cntrl-V this idea into an intellectual bucket, and you get the point of the article. Environment is critical to "geniusness".
Mod Parent up... that is painfully funny.
I remember back in the 'ol days I had a RIME address - that was effectively my email. I also still have the box from my 9600 modem. It's painfully funny...
New 9600 Baud Modem is BLAZINGLY FAST!
- No more waiting for (text?) files to download!
- Over 9 KILOBYTES PER SECOND! (WoW!)
We've come a long way...
Now, when her son is a 300-lb online RPG addict, paying real money for WoW gold, killing real people for the imaginery +12 Warlord Sword, or simply dying of a heart failure in an internet cafe in Korea, then she'll realize that going with the skateboard and pads would have been the healthier choice. ;)
It says "H-ll- W-rld!", what do you suppose that means?
The statement:
is actually not what I was arguing.
You assumed that because I criticized the notion of universal doubt, that I advocate universal certainty. I don't. What I said was question everything you have a reason to question.
Now, you stated I think there is enough reason to question evolution, enough reason to research alternatives anyway..., so I have no problem with you questioning it - but your reasons must be rational. (You don't question that when you drop a coin, it will fall towards the ground, just because it's "possible", in some strange twisted way, that this time it will shoot upwards towards the sky!) You must have reasonable doubt (i.e. evidence of some sort that doesn't fit with the theory). A "hunch" or "opinion" that a theory is wrong is fairly irrational without any evidence to back it up. You might just as well state you question if the Earth is REALLY round, or if all those NASA pictures are just faked. (Don't laugh, people still do this)
I don't think creationism (or any religion-based theory, for that matter) counts as reasonable doubt. As you stated, these theories are concerned with the (unprovable in principle) "ultimate truth". Further, the discrediting of evolution would not boost these theories one bit. I could say that magical elves are responsible for the diversity of life, and this "theory", being unprovable, is equivalent to any other supernatural theory. There are literally an infinite number of possibilities, so creating a false dichotomy between evolution and creationism is wrong. If evolution is wrong, then it is wrong, and nothing else. For a theory to be "right," it must have some solid predictions or, even more important, falsifiability. The "God of the Gaps" idea (where "god" is used to "explain" everything we currently don't understand completely) is tireless and old, and has caused enormous embarassment for all religions once their "unexplainable" events actually became explained.
Finally, there is a theory of evolution and a fact of evolution. The fact of evolution is based on 3 simple observations:
1) The geological record of fossils starts in time with simple, single-celled life and ends with complex life.
2) Complex life can only come from other complex life, and not be suddenly created from a rock.
3) However, children are not necessarily exactly like their parents. Mutations and adaptations occur, causing the gene pool to diversify.
Given these observations, the conclusion is obvious - simple life must have "evolved" into complex life, through a series of adaptations, mutations, or some other gene-diversifying process. This is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution (or natural selection) is a description of the processes and methods that support this fact. Even if the theory were wrong, it would have to be replaced with another theory that explained the evolution of simple life into complex life. Or there would have to be some overwhelming evidence to suggest that one of the 3 fundamental observations are wrong (for example, a demonstration of a rock or banana changing magically into a monkey.)
On a final note, religion was the biggest opponent to both the Round Earth and the "Earth goes around the Sun" theories. The flat earth was questioned once "scientists" of that day noticed the shape of a lunar eclipse shadow (it looked like what a sphere would produce) and how you could observe a ship's mast in the distance before seeing the actual ship (indicating a curved surface). They had evidence that did not fit the current theory, so they questioned it. Without evidence, questioning everything is the same as conspiracy theories and paranoia -- it is irrational. I stand by my original statement, question o
1) Agreed.
2) Interesting...(the bit about the scarcity and increased diversification rate). However, there is a slight nuance here... it ties in with my next point so I'll withhold for now.
3) You are correct, the difference is in the Givens, and this is actually my fundamental "beef" with the ID hypothesis. Let me hold off till the next though, because I basically agree with everything you say except one fundamental point.
4) Ok. I understand what you are saying. (I think). Let me summarize: You are saying that populations have to rack up a significant number of mutations before finding anything beneficial, then have to go through a significant number of generations before that beneficial trait is common, then repeat that process a significant number of times before that beneficial trait becomes something entirely new, such as a wing or an eye, then go through this process a significant number of times to actually become a new species, and enough populations must undergo this to account for all the diversity of life today. Then, based on certain assumptions about the rates of mutation, the rates of adoption of new traits, the incremental "step" you get with each, and the rate of speciation, you (ID) consider it impossible or highly improbable that natural processes alone account for the evolution of simple life into all the diverse complex life, as observed in the strata. Instead, there must be some guiding force, whose methods are inexplicable in principle (because they are un-natural, or supernatural).
Now, if I have that correct, here is my beef:
The first beef, which is superficial, is that ID does not stake itself on these claims. In other words, if ID were to be a scientifically respectable theory, as I define theory, it would basically say:
a) Given the mutation rate is lower than x, and
b) Given the acceptance-into-population-of-traits rate is lower than y, and
c) Given the speciation rate is z... etc etc... ,
then this calculation (*insert calc here*) shows that the rate of the proposed evolutionary theory is too slow to account for the diversity of life as we know it.
By commiting itself to givens, ID would be falsifiable if its givens (the rates of mutation and such) could be demonstrated to be higher than assumed. This is what a legitamate criticism of evolution from a standpoint of probabilities looks like.
My second beef is with the Givens that ID does adopt. You say,
This given is strange because it undercuts the endeavor, and follows in the standard "god of the gaps" kind of argument.
4a) It undercuts the endeavor when you realize the implications of what you're saying. Regular science says "Given (or Assuming) the observable universe is a byproduct of natural processes (understandable, explainable in principle), I will embark on a science to find those processes and document them."... ID, OTOH, states "Given (Assuming) the universe is partially or wholly supernatural (unexplainable, in principle!), I will embark on this science to explain it." In this sense, ID is wholly self-defeating. It posits a question (the universe needs explaining) that neither it nor any observable science, so long as it's confined to this one universe, can adequately explain! ID says there's an "Intelligent Designer" to account for the improbable, but what is the nature and methods of this designer? And how come he/she/it is not subject to the improbability problem themself? (surely the Designer could not have occured by chance!) If the
The world has always contained too much information - computers and the internet have just allowed us to finally have access to it. We've reached a critical level of receiving information (that was always there, just not accessible), and from here on out society needs to work on filtering/categorizing/organizing/etc this information. There are too many books to read, movies to watch, music to listen to, and quack theories to debunk in a single lifetime. There always was, and there always will be. No possible suppression tactic, save global totalitarianism, will ever work.
What the world needs now...is filter, sweet filter.
Ok. I will. How did you arrive at this theory that man cannot be certain? Are you certain (lol) that humans cannot be certain, or is your theory also open to doubt?
You see, if you claim that your theory of "all knowledge is uncertain" is known for certain, then the conclusion refutes the premise! You are mired in your own hypocrisy and collapse under the weight of internal contradiction. Likewise, if your theory is also open to doubt, then on what reasons are you suggesting that we doubt all other theories? Are those reasons certain, or are they also open to doubt?
In one case your position is irrational, in the other it is inconsistent.
Just because man is capable of error doesn't mean that has definately commited an error in any particular case.
You must understand that the foundation of science was made BECAUSE man is capable of error. Science provides a method of determining truths about reality. This is the reason all good science is falsifiable in principle - it is based on man's need to have a METHOD to distinguish truth from fiction. By taking the very foundation of science (man's fallible nature), and arguing that because of that we can never know anything for sure, you're turning epistomolegy on it's head! It's irrational to use reason to argue against the use of reason for arriving at truths. That's like a man pretending to see clearly, that he and all other men are blind!
Question everything when you have a reason for doing so, not just for the sake of questioning.
I feel dirty for laughing at that post...
I'm glad MS sued the hell out of this guy, and I hope they sue the hell out of others too. There's a mutual enemy here - because MS knows that if spam gets out of control, people will have even more of a negative reaction to online advertising than they do already. Negative reaction = no ad money.
In the end, I'd rather see google's contextual ads, or even MS's pretty ugly banner ads for legitimate companies, than John Doe's ads for enlarging various sexual members, reducing my mortgage, getting a fake diploma, or finding some local hooches to sleep with.
Scientists were eager to hook up the machine to a woman, with the hope that getting a glimpse of the female brain would make them millionaires. However, shortly after connecting it, the overloaded machine smoked and fizzled into nothingness. It seems the female mind will forever be unreadable by man or machine.
=p
Wow. An intelligent volley from the other side. Please excuse my previous condescending tone - I tend to debate this subject with theists who enjoy a less-than-respectable education in the topic.
Let me respond with the numbers format we've gotten used to...
1) I disagree, but I believe I see the heart of our disagreement. You are correct: a theory can be a rejection of a previous theory. However, my point was to state that it cannot ONLY be that. That is, it must be more than just a disagreement with the original theory's conclusion. It must put forth something different, a "better" explanation, and stake a claim on certain pieces of evidence that would be compatible with one theory but incompatible with the other. So let me refine my original statement: A theory cannot be ONLY an emphatic rejection of a previous theory - it must also put forth something testable or falsifiable. Otherwise, it's just disagreement within a theory, but not a whole new theory of its own.
2) As for testable predictions, there are numerous. I have been loose with my wording, as I intended to say "falsifiability" - a trait common amongst all real sciences. Nevertheless, as far as predictions go:
2a) Darwin correctly predicted that there must exist a moth with an 11-inch long tongue, after he observed an orchid with an 11-inch long nectar-producing tube. (Tube is probably not the scientifically accurate term, but you get the idea). 147 years after this prediction was made, it was verified by scientists in Madagascar.
2b) I could list others, but the more important predictions are what evolution says you WON'T see. Evolution says that you will never see a complex organism be produced from something simple or inanimate in a single generation (such as a single celled ameoba producing a dog, or a rock somehow creating a rat). It also states that you will never see a complex organism give birth to a completely different organism in a single generation (such as a monkey producing a human in one generation.) Children must be similar (but not necessarily exact!) to their parents. Finally, it says that you will never see an organ for which there is/was never any use, either currently or in the past. (An example of this is a common trait in cave and deep sea creatures existing in no-light environments. They are all blind and translucent, because sight and coloration would not give any a particular reproductive advantage.)
2c) I have drawn (a few) of the falsifiability criteria for evolution. I humbly ask that you submit what would disprove ID.
3) This is a strange refutation. You state that a better answer would be to say nothing about the rock's origin, yet the theory you propose is explicitly centered around the origin (an "Intelligent Designer"). Evolution, and science in general, is concerned with processes. Let me detail the basic facts that brought about evolution:
a) We observe the fossil record going from simple life to complex life.
b)We observe that complex organisms only come from other complex organisms.
c)We observe, however, that there are minor mutations, adaptations, and genetic differences in organisms within a species.
Given those restrictions - the conclusion is obvious - simple life must have somehow "evolved" into complex life through a series of adaptations and mutations. That's the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution (or natural selection) is an explanation of the process that feeds into this fact. Even if the theory were completely wrong, you would have to replace it with another theory that describes the observed fact of evolution, or provide evidence that undercuts the basic observations.
4) Dipping into philosophy is not really what I want to do, so I'll excuse myself from responding (trying to stay on topic, but sometimes I ramble).
4 Sidenote): Now here I must emphatically disagree. This statement: "Macro-evolution might propose that the appendix is an o
According to the X Cup Schedule, Armadillo will be conducting a demo flight out in New Mexico. (Check out Oct 9th activities).
I wonder if he'll be showing off the BFG as well... =p
SpaceShipOne/Two is not comparable to the shuttle. Explanation.
It's a stretch to consider a high-altitude joyride the equivalent, or even near-equivalent, of an orbital mission.