Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

If there were such a thing as fitness, this would probably be largely true. But I would still think of consciousness more as life itself rather than some abstract characteristic that improves the odds of survival and affects the nature of species.

Not a bad definition of fitness.

I seriously doubt any quantitative measure will ever adequately reflect the nature of consciousness.

We will probably need to use relative measures for a while, can we agree on humans > rocks in posession?

This is a leap. While I believe consciousness will eventually reveal some secrets to science there is no way to be certain. In very real ways science will have to peer into its own soul to understand consciousness so modeling and quantifying it may simply prove impossible. While I might doubt it it's even possible consciousness will prove to be "supernatural'. It might have ephemeral definitions and highly discreet or no discernable characteristics. I believe it will prove to be "natural" but this is a prejudice caused by what I want to believe.

All the more reason to apply just these hypotheses to examination, lots of wrong turns in the maze are possible, but experience tells us that we can develop paths.

I want to believe that science can come to understand virtually everything except the effects of chaos which will mean prediction will never be possible.

There will no doubt be things we will never understand before our extinction, it is hardly a reason to give up now.

 

[shunyadragon]

1
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Definition of THEORY

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena; a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I consider "theory" to be a statement of scientific fact as based on state of the art definitions and interpretation of experiment.

A statement of a scientific fact? This is rather awkward from the perspective of science. Science does consider objective observable facts as evidence, and a statement of the fact would be an observation of the fact only. This does not fit the definition of theory. It is odd and incomprehensible at least.

Obviously any theory can change at any time.

True

 

[Pogo]

1
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Definition of THEORY

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena; a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I consider "theory" to be a statement of scientific fact as based on state of the art definitions and interpretation of experiment.

Obviously any theory can change at any time.

Well then we agree on the definition but not the application of the word.
It is far more appropriate for evolution than gravity thus far.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not a bad definition of fitness.

We will probably need to use relative measures for a while, can we agree on humans > rocks in posession?

All the more reason to apply just these hypotheses to examination, lots of wrong turns in the maze are possible, but experience tells us that we can develop paths.

There will no doubt be things we will never understand before our extinction, it is hardly a reason to give up now.

The responses by @cladking go along the lines of those that define terms based on their agenda and/or their ignorance of science. There is no communication except within themselves.

Yes @cladking gave a reference for the definition of theory but . . .

Note the definition by @cladking concerning theory.

"I consider "theory" to be a statement of scientific fact as based on state of the art definitions and interpretation of experiment."

 

[Pogo]

The responses by @cladking go along the lines of those that define terms based on their agenda and/or their ignorance of science. There is no communication except within themselves.

Yes @cladking gave a reference for the definition of theory but . . .

Note the definition by @cladking concerning theory.

"I consider "theory" to be a statement of scientific fact as based on state of the art definitions and interpretation of experiment."

Agreed in general but I am practicing "diplomacy" as a sort of open ended experiment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More accurately I believe I know some of the important questions today. I believe no answers will ever come from reason and experiment but instead ever more relevant questions.

I haven't seen any reason to believe you know any relevant questions. Important or otherwise. Don't know what to make of the rest of this cryptic statement.

And I disagree. I have agreed that "experiment" has a sufficiently broad definition to include some things that take place outside the lab and with no control but no amount of logic, consensus, or scholarship can ever create theory.

You are, as usually arguing a strawman. I said experiment isn't required to generate data for testing hypotheses. Your answer doesn't approach that as a rational response.

The word is merely misapplied in some instances.

What word? Experiment? I think the evidence indicates that you have and continue to misapply it. But that has no real impact on science.

Even where it's properly applied as in "the theory of gravity" it doesn't mean we know everything about gravity.

No one said we did. Once again, you are arguing with some unseen poster using invisible pixels to post with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Definition of THEORY

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena; a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I consider "theory" to be a statement of scientific fact as based on state of the art definitions and interpretation of experiment.

Obviously any theory can change at any time.

If you believe theories can change over time and you also believe they are statements of fact, statements that shouldn't change over time...well, you probably don't see the problem that leaps boldly and loudly from this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Definition of THEORY

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena; a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I consider "theory" to be a statement of scientific fact as based on state of the art definitions and interpretation of experiment.

Obviously any theory can change at any time.

Why present a definition for theory that you follow up with declarations that reject the definition?

That doesn't make sense.

 

[cladking]

If you believe theories can change over time and you also believe they are statements of fact, statements that shouldn't change over time...well, you probably don't see the problem that leaps boldly and loudly from this.

Reality is immutable but human estimation of reality is highly ephemeral because we see what we believe. Every theory is founded not in reality but in our definitions and beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

The history of experiments without a lab in history is interesting going back to our ancestors of humanity before homo sapiens even existed. The first long distance trad by humans was desirable stones for tools and gem stones. Humanity evolved and survived based on experiments

Tool making from stone and wood and the reason flint and obsidian were selected for tools. Genetic selection of plants goes back to the Neolithic . Experiments in engineering for building is sometimes unintentional like the Egyptians building pyramids. Their attempt to build a pyramid that was too steep and it fell down. They changed the angle and finished the pyramid.

 

[Pogo]

Reality is immutable but human estimation of reality is highly ephemeral because we see what we believe. Every theory is founded not in reality but in our definitions and beliefs.

I think I get it now. We are Enlightenment Dinosaurs and you represent the philosophical future through postmodernism.
We have lost our way by looking at what we can do with this life because it is all irrelevant on some grand scale.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Reality is immutable but human estimation of reality is highly ephemeral because we see what we believe. Every theory is founded not in reality but in our definitions and beliefs.

You offer what you believe. I agree with that. I don't accept what you believe, since there is nothing backing up your belief and often it makes little if any sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think I get it now. We are Enlightenment Dinosaurs and you represent the philosophical future through postmodernism.
We have lost our way by looking at what we can do with this life because it is all irrelevant on some grand scale.

Is that what all those posts say? Who knew?

 

[Pogo]

Is that what all those posts say? Who knew?

I don't know, but that was my impression from some conversations at the other end of the bar, I tended to gravitate to the lesbians rather than the lawyers for intellectual conversation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know, but that was my impression from some conversations at the other end of the bar, I tended to gravitate to the lesbians rather than the lawyers for intellectual conversation.

I'm not really sure what that means, but it sounds interesting.

 

[cladking]

The function of experiment is to show the experimenter a bit of reality: Reality manifests in properly designed experiment.

The alternative is to see what we believe. We always see what we believe unless experiment directs us back to reality.

All experiment must apply to every hypothesis. Every hypothesis can not run counter to any experiment.

Every other species sees only what it knows so is mostly blind. We see what we believe so we see a kaleidoscope of what's real. Science, to the degree it's based on experiment, allows us to see bits of reality almost directly, or more accurately, in terms of models properly constructed through experiment.

 

[Pogo]

The function of experiment is to show the experimenter a bit of reality: Reality manifests in properly designed experiment.

Ok, how do we design an experiment properly?

The alternative is to see what we believe. We always see what we believe unless experiment directs us back to reality.

That follows from your first statement.

All experiment must apply to every hypothesis. Every hypothesis can not run counter to any experiment.

So there is some universality that must be understood. How do we determine this prior to any experiment?

Every other species sees only what it knows so is mostly blind. We see what we believe so we see a kaleidoscope of what's real. Science, to the degree it's based on experiment, allows us to see bits of reality almost directly, or more accurately, in terms of models properly constructed through experiment.

Ok, we see through the glass darkly at best, biblical reference noted, and we get to see snippets so again, how does this help us design an experiment or a model?

 

[cladking]

So there is some universality that must be understood. How do we determine this prior to any experiment?

The "universality" is a spectrum of reality itself. We must keep every experiment in mind while inventing hypothesis merely to improve the chances of creating good hypothesis. Every experiment is different and must be tailored to fit the hypothesis.

With reductionistic science it is difficult to construct models to see the big picture but this really is a chief goal of science; to see the big picture.

Every believer in science thinks he sees the whole picture but what he sees is extrapolation and interpolation of what he's read or learned on his own.

 

[Pogo]

The "universality" is a spectrum of reality itself. We must keep every experiment in mind while inventing hypothesis merely to improve the chances of creating good hypothesis. Every experiment is different and must be tailored to fit the hypothesis.

With reductionistic science it is difficult to construct models to see the big picture but this really is a chief goal of science; to see the big picture.

Every believer in science thinks he sees the whole picture but what he sees is extrapolation and interpolation of what he's read or learned on his own.

Ah yes the 21st century version of the new manager from outside. We will know soon enough when we bring him an idea whether he has a clue or just another Dale Carnage graduate.
Ivory towers are nice but even they must sit on earthbound foundations.

Well unless somebody can show me how to actually build a skyhook.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah yes the 21st century version of the new manager from outside. We will know soon enough when we bring him an idea whether he has a clue or just another Dale Carnage graduate.
Ivory towers are nice but even they must sit on earthbound foundations.

Well unless somebody can show me how to actually build a skyhook.

. . . a left handed monkey wrench