Evolution - a very bad joke...

[Revoltingest]

:spit: You're not serious, right?

Pbbbbtbbt....
If into this thread you must chime
at least you could try at a rhyme.
My reasoning's valid.
Opposition is pallid,
and the doggerel's nearly a crime

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Pbbbbtbbt....
If into this thread you must chime
at least you could try at a rhyme.
My reasoning's valid.
Opposition is pallid,
and the doggerel's nearly a crime

I wouldn't give a dime
To hear mball rhyme
At some revolting reason
Especially in this season
It'd be like sucking on a lime

 

[Magic Man]

Pbbbbtbbt....
If into this thread you must chime
at least you could try at a rhyme.
My reasoning's valid.
Opposition is pallid,
and the doggerel's nearly a crime

So, you were serious?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, you were serious?

Just present a cogent argument that Murphy's law isn't a scientific law.
Whether or not you do this will answer your question.

 

[Magic Man]

Just present a cogent argument that Murphy's law isn't a scientific law.
Whether or not you do this will answer your question.

OK, well, it's pretty simple. It's not scientific, therefore it's not a scientific law. I still find it hard to believe you're actually trying to claim that Murphy's Law is an actual scientific law or should be considered the same as one.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I thought I heard from my remote spot,
a debate gone cold, yet rhymes turning hot,
so come running I did,
now, should I tear off the lid
on a jar of whoop-arse verse or not?

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, well, it's pretty simple. It's not scientific, therefore it's not a scientific law. I still find it hard to believe you're actually trying to claim that Murphy's Law is an actual scientific law or should be considered the same as one.

Opinions are all that you've got?
An argument cogent it's not.
From such a nemesis
not even premises?
It seems you've not given me squat.

A poster named Eliot Wild
has musings appealingly styled.
Oh, please will you stay
& join in the fray?
I promise you won't be reviled.

 

[Magic Man]

Opinions are all that you've got?
An argument cogent it's not.

Nope, not opinions, just facts, which constitute a cogent argument. Scientists have not tested Murphy's Law, it's not even testable even if they wanted to, and it's not a scientific hypothesis. It's simply not science. Are you also going to claim that creationism is a scientific theory now?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope, not opinions, just facts, which constitute a cogent argument. Scientists have not tested Murphy's Law, it's not even testable even if they wanted to, and it's not a scientific hypothesis. It's simply not science. Are you also going to claim that creationism is a scientific theory now?

Oh, words & opinions aplenty.
Beginning to wonder how many
posts it will take
before he will make
an argument worthy...or can't he?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Fine....

Murphy's Law is a simple statement, "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".

Does this statement meet the requirements for a Scientifically Valid Law?
Is Murphy's Laws observed to be objectively true?
No, we cannot say with absolute certainty that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
In absolutes, we will get the exact same results every time. This cannot be said of Murphy's Law.
Murphy's Law is an observation in that it describes what is seen to happen, rather than stating a principle whose application predicts what happens.
Without predictability, Murphy's is not a Scientific Law.
Scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, words & opinions aplenty.
Beginning to wonder how many
posts it will take
before he will make
an argument worthy...or can't he?

I'm beginning to wonder how many posts it's going to take before you get a simple idea like Murphy's Law not be scientific. There is nothing scientific about saying "Anything that can go wrong, will". It's not even true. For instance, at my wedding, my wife would have been a perfect candidate for this "law". Thousands of things could have gone wrong, bad weather, torn dress, car breaks down, guests get sick, etc. Even if a lot of stuff goes wrong, not everything that can go wrong does in any situation. I really can't believe you need this explained to you. Whatever your faults, I always thought you were at least intelligent enough to understand something simple like this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Murphy's Law is a simple statement, "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".

Does this statement meet the requirements for a Scientifically Valid Law?
Is Murphy's Laws observed to be objectively true?
No, we cannot say with absolute certainty that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

The nature of physical science is that nothing can be said with absolute certainty.
From the Wikipedia article on the scientific method, we have...
"Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[15]"

In absolutes, we will get the exact same results every time. This cannot be said of Murphy's Law.

Murphy's law applies to a very long time frame, & is statistical in nature. So this critique of yours would not apply.
But hypothetically, if it did, you would void laws of probability. QED by reductio ad absurdum.

Murphy's Law is an observation in that it describes what is seen to happen, rather than stating a principle whose application predicts what happens.

To only describe what happens, without explaining an underlying principle seems the accepted view of a "law", as proffered by Meow Mix.

Without predictability, Murphy's is not a Scientific Law.
Scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute.

Murphy's Law is simple & universal. It is not absolute, but then....neither is any other law regarding the physical world.

Please excuse my dull prose. There was too much to cover in verse within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[David M]

Actually, Murphy's Law makes a clear statement of fact, albeit one less formal & quantitative than boring old Ohm's Law.

Except its not a statement of fact, because things that can go wrong often don't.

 

[Revoltingest]

....at my wedding, my wife would have been a perfect candidate for this "law". Thousands of things could have gone wrong, bad weather, torn dress, car breaks down, guests get sick, etc. Even if a lot of stuff goes wrong, not everything that can go wrong does in any situation.

To evaluate a probabilistic phenomenon, one cannot generalize from a single event.
Given enuf weddings, anything that can happen, will.....eventually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1qDpQYMjqs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26a8JITwImQ&feature=related
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212339766.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB6kZXAd9IU

I really can't believe you need this explained to you.

It's very clear what you believe. You just haven't provided a cogent argument why you're right.

This often happens when anyone challenges conventional thought...People know what they believe
& they're so comfortable with it & certain of it, that they've never questioned it. Is this faith?

Whatever your faults, I always thought you were at least intelligent enough to understand something simple like this.

I apologize for not being intelligent enuf to agree with you.
I hate to disappoint. This is why I prefer to be underestimated.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except its not a statement of fact, because things that can go wrong often don't.

Again, remember that it doesn't prescribe when.

What is the probability that if you flip a coin until it comes up "heads" that it will eventually come up "heads"?
Experience shows that the probability is always 100%.
After exactly how many trials will it be "heads"?
Experience shows that this number cannot be predicted.

I don't know what law this illustrates, but it must have a name.

 

[Magic Man]

To evaluate a probabilistic phenomenon, one cannot generalize from a single event.
Given enuf weddings, anything that can happen, will.....eventually.

Oh, I see. You're just misunderstanding Murphy's Law. No, Murphy's Law doesn't say that given infinite time anything that can go wrong will. It says for any given event, anything that can go wrong will. As in, at a wedding, anything that can go wrong, will, at that particular wedding.

It's very clear what you believe. You just haven't provided a cogent argument why you're right.

This often happens when anyone challenges conventional thought...People know what they believe & they're so comfortable with it & certain of it, that they've never questioned it. Is this faith?

This isn't just challenging conventional thought. It's like you're saying "grass is usually purple". It's simply not true. But now that I figured out the problem, it's easily fixable. Murphy's Law states that anything that can go wrong at a given event, will. That claim is neither true nor scientific.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, or predictable.

At the most, it is a very general hypothesis that is somewhat applicable in engineering.

 

[Oberon]

QED by reductio ad absurdum.

It would have been much cooler if you hadn't used the abbreviation QED.

Quod erat demonstrandum by reduction ad absurdum.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would have been much cooler if you hadn't used the abbreviation QED.

Quod erat demonstrandum by reduction ad absurdum.

I considered it, but thought it a bit too showy.
Still, you show sound judgment in the matter.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, or predictable.
At the most, it is a very general hypothesis that is somewhat applicable in engineering.

That's the most intelligent response I've yet seen....even if I disagree.