[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

Fyron · #1 March 16th, 2003, 01:33 AM

If your rant (other than the whole Scientism junk) actually represents the full situation, then the theory of evolution will be changed to accomodate the inconsistencies. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen. In fact, this serves to corroborate everything I have said, not disprove it.

I said that if scientific theories are proven conclusively to be wrong, science will evolve.

The theories proposed by Newton were changed after people like Einstien came along. There was a lot of resistence, but it did happen. These new theories have been changed some in recent years due to new evidence. The changes met with resistance. I never once said that science changed at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot of conclusive evidence to prove something wrong.

Going back to the religious aspect: religions (primarily in reference to the fundamentals of the religion, mostly as evidenced by the religious scriptures of that religion) do not change like science does to include new evidence. They stay the same, and declare the new evidence to be wrong. Science is not equatable to religion.

Baron Munchausen · #2 March 16th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Going back to the religious aspect: religions (primarily in reference to the fundamentals of the religion, mostly as evidenced by the religious scriptures of that religion) do not change like science does to include new evidence. They stay the same, and declare the new evidence to be wrong. Science is not equatable to religion.

Which is why I assert that evolution is not science. It does NOT change, it asserts that any contrary evidence is wrong.

Suicide Junkie · #3 March 16th, 2003, 01:42 AM

Quote:

I am asserting uncertainty, inconclusiveness, not a rival theory.

So what we have is a choice between:
a) Who knows, it could be anything.
vs
b) So far "evolution" is the closest.

One is useful, the others are not.
(A) Is giving up. It does not help.
Instead, you go with (B) until something better comes along.

All we need is someone with a better idea.
Where better means:
a) matches the already-observed phenomena.
b) can be used to predict future observations more accurately.
c) is simpler. (Nice but not nessesary, of course)

For evolution in particular:
I have no doubt that it will change. The problem is you can't expect instantaneous results. Also, if you want to get rid of evolution, you need to BUILD a better, competing theory instead of just trying to demolish the old theory.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Baron Munchausen · #4 March 16th, 2003, 02:07 AM

I didn't see any indication that the debate was about 'usefullness'. I saw Fyron asserting that there was some huge difference between 'science' and 'religion'. What I wanted to point out is that a close examination of some fields of 'science' shows them to be religious in character. So this big distinction is not so clear as he would like to think it is. And anyway, I'd sure like to know what 'use' an untestable theory is.

Sure we've got a lot of practical benefits from various biological sciences, some of which might have been developed while trying to investigate evolution, but what have we gotten from evolution specifically?

P.S. Who says you have to have a new theory before you can dispose of the old one? Why can't I disprove the phlogiston theory of heat until I develop the radiation theory? It's easy to do. Grind a couple of wheels together and see that they never stop heating each other up by friction.

[ March 16, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Fyron · #5 March 16th, 2003, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Which is why I assert that evolution is not science. It does NOT change, it asserts that any contrary evidence is wrong.

No, it does not assert that any and all contrary evidence is wrong. The contrary evidence is relatively recent, and the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going.

Baron Munchausen · #6 March 16th, 2003, 02:31 AM

In this case, Fyron, it is you who are wrong. Publicly doubting Darwinian evolution is fatal to academic and scientific careers. The quickest references would be Online, but you could find many more if you were interested. Try visiting http://www.alternativescience.com/sc...censorship.htm for some examples. There are many less formal situations with the same intent as some of the examples given here. For example there was a recent thread on Usenet about some biology professor who would not allow students to graduate unless they asserted that they 'believed in' evolution. I suppose I could go look that up. Or you could if you were interested in contrary evidence to your own beliefs.

[ March 16, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Suicide Junkie · #7 March 16th, 2003, 03:31 AM

Quote:

For example there was a recent thread on Usenet about some biology professor would would not allow students to graduate unless they asserted that they 'believed in' evolution.

That prof could use a smack upside the head

Requiring a real understanding of it is certainly not a problem. Without learning the strengths and weaknesses of the current theories, what chance do you have of improving things?

I'm not a chemistry major, but I'm sure there must have been some good uses for the phlogiston theory. Chemical reactions are what it is good for, rather than mechanical things. ISTM that "Phlogiston concentration" would relate to the degree of oxidation.
It was not correct, but it was not totally wrong in a practical sense.