Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

Right




And here is where I disagree. You can have the facts right, but still reach illogical, fallacious conclusions. It simply doesn't follow point 1 and point 2 that therefore the discovery of tiktaalik was NECESSARY to prove evolution.

Let me give you a rather obvious example of having correct facts but fallacious reasoning: Dogs are mammals. Dogs like to play fetch. Therefore mammals like to play catch. The two facts are correct, but the conclusion is unwarranted.


No, its not because point 1 or point 2 has to be wrong. It is due to fallacious thinking. IOW the fault lies not with the facts, but with the flawed, defective reasoning arriving at a false conclusion.


Wikipedia has a good article on Fallacy if you are interested.

But in this case the conclusion follows from the premises.

 

[leroy]

Am I often wrong? This is your response to me explaining to you why predictions in a hypothesis need to follow facts (and logic). You offer no rebuttal to my explantion, just complain as if you, a person with no functional knowledge of science, is an expert.

There's no controvercy of what a hypothesis is, you just lack knowledge and avoid correcting your errors.

Before you complain about me pointing out your error here, it's all here and in my previous post.

No, you aren't explaining what you mean. Should science follow ILLOGICALLY? What the hell?

Logic isn't really part of science. In the colloquial sense sciemnce is a logical process because there has to be a sequence of facts, data, method, and testing that comes to an objective conclusion.

In science a hypothesis needs to account for ALL facts, and ALL data, You can't cherry pick to get the conclusions you want. So using ALL data and facts means the prediction will be limited to a very small probablity of alternatives. And even that said the alternatives won't be far from what the prediction is.

You seem to be suffering from ignorance of how scince works, black and white thinking, and looking to create gaps for a God to be shoehorned into.

OMG

Logically follows is a technical philosophical term that means ………. Never mind………. You are too naïve to understand this things

Should science follow ILLOGICALLY? What the hell?

I will correct your mistake only if you show to me that you have a genuine interest in learning

 

[leroy]

leroy said:
@TagliatelliMonster …….he is the one who made the claim that predictions *must* logically follow from the hypothesis/model/theory/.

And he is correct, assuming that we want accurate predictions. But you need to cite the prediction properly.

Again “must logically follow” is a very strong Word/phrase

It is at least logically possible for evolution to be true, even if tiktaalik was never found or never existed.

In the same way it is logically possible for you to buy dog food even if you don’t have a dog.

My point is that a prediction is not invalid just because it doesn’t “follow logically”………..you buying dog food increases the probability that you have a dog (this is why this is a good prediction) even if it doesn’t follow logically.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again “must logically follow” is a very strong Word/phrase

It is at least logically possible for evolution to be true, even if tiktaalik was never found or never existed.

In the same way it is logically possible for you to buy dog food even if you don’t have a dog.

My point is that a prediction is not invalid just because it doesn’t “follow logically”………..you buying dog food increases the probability that you have a dog (this is why this is a good prediction) even if it doesn’t follow logically.

Again it is not the same cause and effect. But you don't seem to understand that.

 

[Pogo]

But in this case the conclusion follows from the premises.

No it does not,
(which means that evolution could have not been true without the discovery of tiktaalik.)
is a fallacious statement regardless of the premises.
1) @leroy demonstrates his lack of understanding of evolution by making fallacious statements.
2) @leroy said (which means that evolution could have not been true without the discovery of tiktaalik.)

3) @leroy lacks understanding of evolution.

 

[Pogo]

OMG

Logically follows is a technical philosophical term that means ………. Never mind………. You are too naïve to understand this things

And you don't know what it means.
Chat GPt
"Logically follows" refers to the idea that one statement or proposition can be inferred or deduced from another statement or set of statements based on the rules of logic. In logical reasoning, if one statement is true and another statement logically follows from it, then the second statement must also be true. This process of inference is fundamental to deductive reasoning, where conclusions are drawn from premises based on logical principles

Which is not how you are using it though it is not clear what you do mean.

I will correct your mistake only if you show to me that you have a genuine interest in learning

Pot, kettle, black

 

[Pogo]

Again “must logically follow” is a very strong Word/phrase

It is at least logically possible for evolution to be true, even if tiktaalik was never found or never existed.

In the same way it is logically possible for you to buy dog food even if you don’t have a dog.

My point is that a prediction is not invalid just because it doesn’t “follow logically”………..you buying dog food increases the probability that you have a dog (this is why this is a good prediction) even if it doesn’t follow logically.

Where, when and with what text did you study formal logic of any sort?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But in this case the conclusion follows from the premises.

No, it does not. You argument was a non sequitur.

 

[Pogo]

Where, when and with what text did you study formal logic of any sort?

Well it is logically possible that he did but it doesn't logically follow from his posts.;

 

[leroy]

And you don't know what it means.
Chat GPt
"Logically follows" refers to the idea that one statement or proposition can be inferred or deduced from another statement or set of statements based on the rules of logic. In logical reasoning, if one statement is true and another statement logically follows from it, then the second statement must also be true. This process of inference is fundamental to deductive reasoning, where conclusions are drawn from premises based on logical principles

Which is not how you are using it though it is not clear what you do mean.

Pot, kettle, black

Ok with that information in mind, do you still hold the absurd view that predictions have to follow logically from the hypothesis/ theory?

For example

Hypothesis: you have a dog

Prediction: if you have a dog, I would expect to find dog food in your shopping kart (sometimes)

Do you really hold the view that the prediction MUST be true if you have a dog?................do you really hold the view that it is impossible (literally impossible) for you to have a dog even if you never buy dog food?

The answer is obviously not, because predictions don’t have to follow logically…………. In this case it is likely (but not necessary) that if you have a dog you would buy dog food………….if the prediction is true the hypothesis becomes more likely to be true (this is why the prediction is valid)

And be honest you don’t disagree with anything in this post……… you are just pretending to disagree because you don’t what to admit your mistake

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok with that information in mind, do you still hold the absurd view that predictions have to follow logically from the hypothesis/ theory?

For example

Hypothesis: you have a dog

Prediction: if you have a dog, I would expect to find dog food in your shopping kart (sometimes)

Do you really hold the view that the prediction MUST be true if you have a dog?................do you really hold the view that it is impossible (literally impossible) for you to have a dog even if you never buy dog food?

The answer is obviously not, because predictions don’t have to follow logically…………. In this case it is likely (but not necessary) that if you have a dog you would buy dog food………….if the prediction is true the hypothesis becomes more likely to be true (this is why the prediction is valid)

And be honest you don’t disagree with anything in this post……… you are just pretending to disagree because you don’t what to admit your mistake

Your example revolves around that having a dog doesn't cause you to the effect of buying dog food. Correct.
Now check cause and effect in the other example.
Start by find the text again and then check the cause and effect between the 3 time periods and what the TOE predicts.

 

[Pogo]

Ok with that information in mind, do you still hold the absurd view that predictions have to follow logically from the hypothesis/ theory?

For example

Hypothesis: you have a dog

Prediction: if you have a dog, I would expect to find dog food in your shopping kart (sometimes)

Do you really hold the view that the prediction MUST be true if you have a dog?................do you really hold the view that it is impossible (literally impossible) for you to have a dog even if you never buy dog food?

The answer is obviously not, because predictions don’t have to follow logically…………. In this case it is likely (but not necessary) that if you have a dog you would buy dog food………….if the prediction is true the hypothesis becomes more likely to be true (this is why the prediction is valid)

And be honest you don’t disagree with anything in this post……… you are just pretending to disagree because you don’t what to admit your mistake

This is beyond the agree..disagree spectrum,

Not even wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But in this case the conclusion follows from the premises.

No, it doesn't.

The conclusion ASSUMES something not in evidence, something that is actually not true, which that the tiktaalik fossil is the ONLY line of evidence. When the conclusion is based on an assumption that is false (or at least not in evidence), that means the conclusion doesn't follow, that the logic is flawed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hum! I was mocking you and you walked right into it

Oh my goodness. Troll troll troll. I don't take you seriously, and I don't think anyone else in here does either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok with that information in mind, do you still hold the absurd view that predictions have to follow logically from the hypothesis/ theory?

For example

Hypothesis: you have a dog

Prediction: if you have a dog, I would expect to find dog food in your shopping kart (sometimes)

Do you really hold the view that the prediction MUST be true if you have a dog?................do you really hold the view that it is impossible (literally impossible) for you to have a dog even if you never buy dog food?

The answer is obviously not, because predictions don’t have to follow logically…………. In this case it is likely (but not necessary) that if you have a dog you would buy dog food………….if the prediction is true the hypothesis becomes more likely to be true (this is why the prediction is valid)

And be honest you don’t disagree with anything in this post……… you are just pretending to disagree because you don’t what to admit your mistake

You just refuted your Tiktaalik argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just refuted your Tiktaalik argument.n.

Please explain.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is at least logically possible for evolution to be true, even if tiktaalik was never found or never existed. In the same way it is logically possible for you to buy dog food even if you don’t have a dog.

Yes, of course. I still can't discern why you post sentences like these.

My point is that a prediction is not invalid just because it doesn’t “follow logically”

And I don't know what you mean by invalid here. I expect a prediction to be correct if it is a valid deduction. Is that what you mean? Sometimes, a prediction is just a guess (not deduced), as when one chooses lottery numbers. I wouldn't use the word invalid to describe that.

And I think you're still conflating logically possible and logically follows. Why does that first comment address logical possibility? You've had both phrases defined for you in this thread. To review, logically possible means that a claim does not violate the laws of reason, that is, isn't self-contradictory.

@Pogo just gave you a good definition of logically follows: "Logically follows" refers to the idea that one statement or proposition can be inferred or deduced from another statement or set of statements based on the rules of logic. In logical reasoning, if one statement is true and another statement logically follows from it, then the second statement must also be true. This process of inference is fundamental to deductive reasoning, where conclusions are drawn from premises based on logical principle."

you buying dog food increases the probability that you have a dog (this is why this is a good prediction) even if it doesn’t follow logically.

But it does follow logically that a person who buys dog food is more likely to have a dog than one who doesn't. It's also logically possible that the guy who buys dog food doesn't have a dog while one who never buys it does, but it doesn't logically follow that either does or does not feed a dog.

Logical possibility and logically following are at opposite ends of a probability spectrum. The first refers to things not known to be impossible however unlikely they are. The latter refers to things considered demonstrably correct. We say that it is logically possible that earth could be impacted by a large asteroid this year, but absent sighting a candidate impactor on the proper trajectory, this logically possible idea is very unlikely. If, however, we do identify such an object with an ephemeris that suggest that impact is highly likely or inevitable, we arrive at that conclusion via deduction.

Does that help?

What would help me is if you could write a simple sentence or two that you think others would disagree with, but you want to argue is actually correct (or vice versa), and which motivates you to pursue this line of questioning. And it should be the most general statement that you consider correct yet controversial. Write a sentence that you believe correct that you think others interacting with you here would disagree with that accounts for why you are discussing this topic.

Let's debate that. If this were a formal debate, we would begin with a resolution. Please do that. Here are examples from the Fulton Prize debates of the past few years:

2023—“Resolved: The U.S. Federal Government should enact an economy-wide carbon tax.”

2022—“Resolved: The U.S. Supreme Court should overrule the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Shurtleff v. City of Boston by holding that the City of Boston’s third flagpole available for raising private flags is not government speech.”

2021—“Resolved: The United States should restrict the activation of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of the Philippines to an armed attack on the territories, islands, and armed forces under the administrative control of the Philippines.”

2020—“Resolved: The United States should adopt a constitutional amendment to require term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.”

 

[F1fan]

OMG

Logically follows is a technical philosophical term that means ………. Never mind………. You are too naïve to understand this things

Oh the ongoing irony coming from a member that routinely gets science wrong.

I will correct your mistake only if you show to me that you have a genuine interest in learning

Still playing your blackmail games with nothing to bargain with.

Just get science right.

 

[YoursTrue]

On the contrary, there is a robust theory that explains all of the fossils that have been found that date before and after Tiktaalik. The hypothesis that is relevant was that a fossil with traits similar to Tiktaalik could found in strata of the appropriate age. It was investigated and lo and behold it was fount and the hypothesis confirmed.

On the other hand, we have your presumption that none of this is true based only on your refusal to actually engage in the subject.
Denial of reality is not a pretty intellectual trait and could certainly be considered violation of the commandment not to bear false witness.

On the contrary really to you. Nothing you say must be believed because you can't test whether a fish evolved to become a Tiktaalik.

 

[F1fan]

On the contrary really to you. Nothing you say must be believed because you can't test whether a fish evolved to become a Tiktaalik.

All you should do is accept what experts conclude.

What intellectual position do you have that questions the results? None. You have religious bias. I find it odd that despite all these discussions that creationists refuse to acknowledge what their minds are doing that is faulty. It’s like what a robot would do.

No curiosity. No interest in learning.