Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

People eat what they want to eat even though what they eat is often unhealthy.

The correct word is "unhealthful." Most food is beyond unhealthy. It's generally dead.

What does that ultimately prove except that people are irrational?

There is no proof of irrationality there. It is perfectly rational to prefer less of the life you prefer living over more of the kind that you don't.

 

[Polymath257]

What you seem to miss is that this is a statement of identity. You determine something mass by weighing it. By weighing it you are measuring the gravitational force exerted on the object. Then you come back around to it by saying that the gravitational force exerted on the object is caused by the gravitational force exerted on the object?

You can also measure mass via the inertia. That is independent of the gravitational method. That the two methods give the same rsult is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

I don't get your point. Other than trying to cover up your gaffe of calling Newton's Law of Gravity a theory, where are you going with this?

It wasn't a gaffe. THAT is the point. You made a claim that Newton's description of the force of gravity was a 'law' as opposed to a theory, yet Einstein's description of gravity was a 'theory' instead of a 'law'. I am merely pointing out that *both* have exactly the same status. The only thing separating the 'law' and the 'theory' is a terminological caution for the later description.

 

[sayak83]

First of all, your question is completely off topic. I asked you to justify Bayesian epistemology and since you couldn't you started asking me about how to logically determine what there is in our house that can be eaten to assuage hunger?

Second, the problem is one that is handled by elementary decision theory. Depending on your exact goals, you will choose one of the min-max scenarios available to you. It is fundamentally no different from choosing whether to have a smoke detector in your house or whether to buy fire insurance.

Finally, as you know, most people simply react to food emotionally. People eat what they want to eat even though what they eat is often unhealthy. What does that ultimately prove except that people are irrational?

Decision theory is based on Bayesian inference from evidence. If Bayesian inference is wrong, in your view, then so is the logic of decision theory. Therefore I am still having difficulty deciding how to use infallible logic to select with solid object is food. Enlighten me.

https://folk.ntnu.no/ushakov/emner/ST2201/v08/files/berger1.pdf

I have already resolved Goodman's inference problem. See my previous post. Next?

 

[Polymath257]

There are no virtues of the scientific method. It is a logical fallacy writ large. Additionally, scientists don't even use that method.

It's a simple fact that most published research findings are false. The reasons for this are known. No one cares. Science is not about finding truth. It's about getting funding.

There is a huge issue with p-hacking. There is a huge issue with underfunding.

But we *expect* most results to be false in the long run. Duh. But that isn't the reasonable question. Do the results accurately illuminate the situation in a way that helps us to more understanding?

Newton's 'laws' were wrong. But to dismiss them as 'wrong' is to miss much of the point and abilities of science.

 

[Zosimus]

So, get the different perspectives to make clear predictions ahead of time and to formulate an experiment or observation that ALL agree will be determinative. Do the test and see what happens.

The problem with voodoo and Marxism is that they never give specific predictions that are testable. But this is a basic requirement. ALL have to agree ahead of time on the criteria of success and failure of the different viewpoints.

The same thing could be said of natural selection. Whatever happens the theory is confirmed.

 

[Zosimus]

Decision theory is based on Bayesian inference from evidence. If Bayesian inference is wrong, in your view, then so is the logic of decision theory. Therefore I am still having difficulty deciding how to use infallible logic to select with solid object is food. Enlighten me.

As you well know, there is no way to determine with a surety that any item really is healthy food. For all you know, that hamburger you ate quite safely yesterday was poisoned by your wife just this morning. So what is the point of your argument?

https://folk.ntnu.no/ushakov/emner/ST2201/v08/files/berger1.pdf

Not all statistics is Bayesian.

I have already resolved Goodman's inference problem. See my previous post. Next?

No, you have done nothing of the sort. You have merely demonstrated the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Zosimus]

There is a huge issue with p-hacking. There is a huge issue with underfunding.

But we *expect* most results to be false in the long run. Duh. But that isn't the reasonable question. Do the results accurately illuminate the situation in a way that helps us to more understanding?

Newton's 'laws' were wrong. But to dismiss them as 'wrong' is to miss much of the point and abilities of science.

Your claims are based on three dubious assumptions.

1. You assume that Newton was a scientist.
2. You assume that past picking of low-hanging fruit will translate into future results.
3. You assume that when science is wrong that's a good thing.

 

[Zosimus]

But how do you know any of the resources available will meet those goals?

You don't know. You gamble your way through life.

So there is no rational way to know that eating certain things will help assuage hunger?

There is no way to know for certain what things will assuage your hunger. How many people have eaten things and then said... you know, I'm still craving a certain... something... and I don't know what?

 

[Zosimus]

Of course they are. I would be lucky if more than 2% of my ideas and 10% of my research results turn out to be fruitful avenues for advancing the field. A theoretician can expect even less. Individual scientific papers are communications between scientists regarding ideas they pursue in their labs and their initial preliminary findings. Only about 5-10% of the ideas and results of various papers ever go anywhere. These are the ones that get successfully replicated and built upon through further successful studies. Once this happens and a set of ideas stand the test of repeated validation, they get written about in technical monograms, often get picked up by applied scientists and used in turn and eventually found its way to students and the industry R&D (like quantum computing, semiconductor technology, AI etc.) Science labs and groups work as start-ups with ideas as products and compete with each other in this fashion. Like all startups, only a few ideas work out and the later efforts are built in expanding these.

So your argument is that if science works then we will see technical progress.
We see technical progress.
So science must work.

This is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

We could just as easily reframe the entire thing in a pro-Christian light.

If God is preparing to preach his gospel to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples, then he will be inspiring technological progress to make that possible.
Technological progress sufficient to enable worldwide communication is happening.
Therefore, God is preparing to preach his gospel to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.

Whoop-ee-dee-doo! Anyone can commit logical fallacies and prove nonsensical things!

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, actually. it shows that under white llight it is red and under blue light it is a different color. So, the ambient light is important for color determination. This is useful information. Next, we might try to determine if there is something about the ruby that is related to color that does NOT depend on ambient light. Or, we might look for ways to predict the color based on the ambient light. In any case, it would show that 'color' is something that is not simply a property of the ruby.

So basically what you are saying is that you reject the description "grue" because it requires you to know the date to know what color something is. But you accept the description "green" which requires you to know the ambient light condition to know what color something is.

What's the difference?

You have deduced two results from a very limited formal system. But those results show nothing at all about the real world.

I completely disagree.

I would need a good definition of 'round' and 'square' first. Then I would attempt to figure out what a 'round hole that is square would look like'. I would attempt to create such and see if it was possible.

You would "attempt to figure out what a round hole that is a square would look like?" In other words, you would use rationalism to approach the problem?

Prove it.

If black holes existed, there would be Hawking radiation.
There is no Hawking radiation.
Therefore, black holes do not exist.

Each additional black raven that I see, without seeing a non-black raven increases my confidence that all ravens are black. When shown a white raven, that confidence goes to zero.

Really? All right. The statement "all ravens are black" is logically equivalent to the statement "Everything that is not black is not a raven." Accordingly, if seeing a black raven increases your confidence in the idea that all ravens are black then seeing a green apple should also increase your confidence that all ravens are black since the green object could have been a raven, but was not. Therefore, your theory was confirmed.

Extending this, I hypothesize that Richard Dawkins does not exist.
This is equivalent to the statement that every human being who exists is not Richard Dawkins.
Come to think of it, I passed thousands of human beings today and none of them were Richard Dawkins.
Thus, my confidence in the statement "Richard Dawkins does not exist" is quite high.

=================================
But let's delve even more deeply. Seeing a black raven increases your confidence that all ravens are black. Why is that? It's because of your prior probabilities. But let's imagine that you meet someone who says:

All ravens are black... I'll give that a probability of 0.5
I'll see a black raven today... I'll give that a probability of 0.1
I'll see a black raven today & all ravens are black... I'll give that a probability of 0.04.

I see a black raven today. Wow! How should I update my view of the world?
New probability that all ravens are black = 0.04 / 0.1 = 40%
So this person's new belief system, after having seen a black raven, is that it is now less likely that all ravens are black.

What made your a priori probability numbers good and his a priori probability numbers bad?

 

[Zosimus]

How precisely does the alien see grue?
Actually since green is a subjective and unscientific property let us change the thought expt to some scientific property shall we? Say electrons with property charge e while a neutron has no charge i.e. neutral.

Object X is Farged if and only if X has charge e and has been observed before time t', Or X is neutral and is never observed before time t'.
Object X is Seutral if and only if X is neutral and has been observed before time t', OR X has charge e and has never been observed before time t'.

Then Farge and Seutral are simply related to property charge as follows:-

Farge F = [1-H(t-t')]*e
Seutral S = H(t-t')*e

where H(t-t') is the Heavyside function. See below,

Heaviside step function - Wikipedia


Given the definition of Farge and Seutral above, all theories and laws of electromagnetism can be derived as usual. The Heavyside function will make the mathematics more complicated but nothing else.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that at some point in the future, assuming the Farge/Seutral theory is correct, everything will have a different charge than it has now.

 

[Revoltingest]

To provide data is a waste of time because it can be interpreted as one pleases.
Instead, provide a reasoned argument from common ground.
Then, qapla'....sometimes.

 

[Zosimus]

No it's not. That's why you don't see scientific organizations operating according to astrology or voodoo. The history of science is littered with failed hypotheses.

You didn't know that?

Yes, that's the point. It's called pessimistic induction.

Apparently you're operating under the common creationist misconception that because evolutionary theory hasn't been falsified, it can't be. Surely a logician such as yourself wouldn't make that sort of fundamental error, right?

Of course not. You have merely misunderstood the argument. My point is that the biological theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection make no testable predictions.

 

[Zosimus]

... and the way to do so has been known for a long time; "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." the response given by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study.

This is false, but even if it were true, that would merely open the door to something that you reject completely.

In fact, using your same logic we could classify Christianity as scientific. After all, finding Jesus of Nazareth's tomb would effectively falsify all of Christianity. Therefore, since Christianity is falsifiable, it is scientific. Let's start teaching it in schools.

In reality what you have done is engaged in the tacking by disjunction paradox.

Imagine that you have an unfalsifiable theory (Thor is the God of Lightning) and you pair it with an unrelated claim (Electricity will power computers). Then you say My theory is (T&E), which is now a falsifiable theory because if you just prove that electricity will not power computers, you will have disproved the theory.

The problem is that to the extent that observations confirm/refute (E) they also tend to confirm/refute (T&E).

Plus, even if you find a computer that cannot be powered by electricity, it doesn't stop the believer from making a new theory:

Thor is the God of Lightning AND Lightning often strikes during storms. New and improved falsifiable theory making Thor perfectly scientific.

 

[Sapiens]

What a load of claptrap, you give even amateur philosophers and logicians a bad name.

You are off the topic anyway.

The request was how to falsify the TOE, the answer was easy and obvious, just find a rabbit fossil in a strata that predates mammals.

 

[Zosimus]

The correct word is "unhealthful." Most food is beyond unhealthy. It's generally dead.

Incorrect. From the definition of unhealthy
Unhealthy (adverb)
3. not conducive to good health; unhealthful:
Night air was formerly considered unhealthy.

 

[Zosimus]

What a load of claptrap, you give even amateur philosophers and logicians a bad name.

You are off the topic anyway.

The request was how to falsify the TOE, the answer was easy and obvious, just find a rabbit fossil in a strata that predates mammals.

Theory and Reality

"Suppose we found a well-preserved rabbit fossil in rocks 600 million years old. All our other evidence suggests that the only animals around then were sponges and a few other invertebrates and that mammals did not appear until over 300 million years later. Of course, a good deal of suspicion would be directed toward the finding itself. How sure are we that the rocks are that old? Might the rabbit fossil have been planted as a hoax? Remember the apparent fossil link between humans and apes that turned out to be a hoax, the Piltdown man of 1908. Here we encounter another aspect of the problem of holism about testing—the challenging of observational reports, especially observational reports that are expressed in a way that presupposes other pieces of theoretical knowledge. This will be discussed in chapter 10. But let us suppose that all agree the fossil is clearly a Pre-cambrian rabbit.
This finding would not be an instant falsification of all of evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is now a diverse package of ideas, including abstract theoretical models as well as claims about the actual history of life on earth..."

================================
Oh look at that. My "load of claptrap" is the opinion of a recognized expert on the subject. Hmmm...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theory and Reality

"Suppose we found a well-preserved rabbit fossil in rocks 600 million years old. All our other evidence suggests that the only animals around then were sponges and a few other invertebrates and that mammals did not appear until over 300 million years later. Of course, a good deal of suspicion would be directed toward the finding itself. How sure are we that the rocks are that old? Might the rabbit fossil have been planted as a hoax? Remember the apparent fossil link between humans and apes that turned out to be a hoax, the Piltdown man of 1908. Here we encounter another aspect of the problem of holism about testing—the challenging of observational reports, especially observational reports that are expressed in a way that presupposes other pieces of theoretical knowledge. This will be discussed in chapter 10. But let us suppose that all agree the fossil is clearly a Pre-cambrian rabbit.
This finding would not be an instant falsification of all of evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is now a diverse package of ideas, including abstract theoretical models as well as claims about the actual history of life on earth..."

================================
Oh look at that. My "load of claptrap" is the opinion of a recognized expert on the subject. Hmmm...

Actually, what he writes is far more informed and substantial than what you wrote. You're also deliberately omitting the following paragraph, in which he explains the aspects of evolutionary theory which WOULD be affected (if not outright falsified) by a precambrian rabbit:

"... The theoretical models are intended to describe what various evolutionary mechanisms can do in principle. Claims of that kind are usually tested via mathematical analysis and computer simulation. Small-scale evolution can also be directly observed in the lab, especially in bacteria and fruit flies, and the Precambrian rabbit would not affect those results.
But a Precambrian rabbit fossil would show that somewhere in the package of central claims found in evolutionary biology textbooks, there are some serious errors. These would at least include errors about the overall history of life, about the kinds of processes through which a rabbit-like organism could evolve, and about the "family tree" of species on earth. The challenge would be to work out where the errors lie, and that would require separating out and independently reassessing each of the ideas which make up the package. This reassessment could, in principle, result in the discarding of very basic evolutionary beliefs - like the idea that humans evolved from non-humans."

In other words, it wouldn't falsify that which we have already directly tested and observed, but would basically reverse everything we thought we knew about how organisms evolve (and if they do at all) and effectively cast serious doubt on common descent.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, that's the point. It's called pessimistic induction.

I don't care what it's called. You asked why voodoo and astrology aren't correct, and my answer to your question stands.....they don't work.

Or are you the kind of person who would demand that we continue to use things that we know don't work?

My point is that the biological theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection make no testable predictions.

You need to make up your mind. When Sayak argues for evolutionary theory by describing how some of its testable predictions have been confirmed, you complain that it's the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Yet here you are now criticizing evolutionary theory for allegedly not making testable predictions.

Maybe you should take a few days and think on this a bit. Get back to us when you've figured out what you're doing.

 

[Jose Fly]

... and the way to do so has been known for a long time; "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." the response given by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study.

That's definitely the most famous example, but there are many, many others. Of course the most obvious would be if we saw populations generate new traits or species by non-evolutionary means. But to date, all we've ever seen are traits coming about via evolution.