|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 07:32:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Hawks
Here's the million dollar question: What do you call it when your conclusion is also your assumption?
|
Unscience?
|
A theory.
|
That would be funny if you knew what you were talking about. 
|
So are you saying that there are zero assumptions in the complete fish-to-philosopher theory? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 07:35:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Erm, without testable predictions it doesnt even qualify for 'hypothsis' let alone 'theory'
|
Bah! It's barely a conjecture and not a very good one at that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Coelacanth who went on at some length about speculations. Well, ID looks to be right up his alley.
Come to think of it..... Nah. I won't go there.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 07:38:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Hawks
Here's the million dollar question: What do you call it when your conclusion is also your assumption?
|
Unscience?
|
A theory.
|
That would be funny if you knew what you were talking about.
|
So are you saying that there are zero assumptions in the complete fish-to-philosopher theory?
|
Only gaps in record, Bill. Only gaps in the record. And gradually, as new information trickles in, those conjectures will be fleshed out.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 07:42:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So are you saying that there are zero assumptions in the complete fish-to-philosopher theory? |
What was it that Hawks said?Originally posted by Hawks
What do you call it when your conclusion is also your assumption? |
So you, Bill, have decided that if even a single assumption exists in a theory, that means that one's conclusion is the same as one's assumption?
I've seen you twist the language before, Bill, but this is a real whopper. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 07:56:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by pleco
That would be funny if you knew what you were talking about.
|
So are you saying that there are zero assumptions in the complete fish-to-philosopher theory?
|
That's exactly what I wasn't saying. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 08:01:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Coelacanth who went on at some length about speculations. |
He did say this:
In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe.
| Well, ID looks to be right up his alley. |
I don't believe he ever denied this. His point, if I'm not mistaken, was that in reality, both sides have no real knowledge and only have what is most reasonable to believe. We both look at the same evidence and come away with what we both find as more reasonable to believe. It's all speculation and assumptions. This is why I believe most might take offence when the other position labels their position as "insane." The one doing the labeling is holding onto an assumed position whilst making this deceleration.
I will go ahead and dismiss dude and HH's definition of empirical as being: what is most reasonable for them to believe, as unacceptable.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 08:08:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I will go ahead and dismiss dude and HH's definition of empirical as being: what is most reasonable for them to believe, as unacceptable. |
How has that ever been their definition of "empirical?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 08:51:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
And gradually, as new information trickles in, those conjectures will be fleshed out.
|
More speculation. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 08:54:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I've seen you twist the language before, Bill, but this is a real whopper.
|
So you, Bill, have decided that if even a single assumption exists in a theory, that means that one's conclusion is the same as one's assumption?
I've seen you twist the language before, Bill, but this is a real whopper. |
What I am saying is that if one assumption exists in the theory then by definition the theory is based on assumption(s). You might give the assumption a higher probability factor over say another assumption. But your just adding in more assumptions to the mix based on your speculations. We have seen plenty of incorrect assumptions before in science that we can point to, and I can only assume we will not be immune from them in the future.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 08:57:24 [Permalink]
|
[i]Originally posted by pleco
That's exactly what I wasn't saying.
|
Then my original statement stands. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 09:39:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
What I am saying is that if one assumption exists in the theory then by definition the theory is based on assumption(s). You might give the assumption a higher probability factor over say another assumption. But your just adding in more assumptions to the mix based on your speculations. We have seen plenty of incorrect assumptions before in science that we can point to, and I can only assume we will not be immune from them in the future. |
It's a real pity you used an assumption there. You might have had an actual argument if you'd avoided assuming anything (even if you could "only" assume).
Seriously, you're doing nothing more here than showing that you obviously don't understand science, Bill. Because no matter what your philosophy, you assume something. One does science, however, by testing assumptions.
Can you, Bill, point to even a single untested assumption within the theory of evolution? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 09:42:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
I will go ahead and dismiss dude and HH's definition of empirical as being: what is most reasonable for them to believe, as unacceptable. |
How has that ever been their definition of "empirical?"
|
Rather then to get into a word game over the definition of empirical let's just say that when someone labels another "insane" simply for not believing verbatim what they believe to be a more reasonable assumption then this is a clear cut sign that one has been indoctrinated to the point of cynic, and IMO borderlines as empirical evidence as far as the claim that the one claiming the "insane" label is in fact an indoctrinated cynic. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 10:07:40 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| It's a real pity you used an assumption there. You might have had an actual argument if you'd avoided assuming anything (even if you could "only" assume). |
That's your assumption.
| One does science, however, by testing assumptions. |
I never disputed this.
| Can you, Bill, point to even a single untested assumption within the theory of evolution? |
Since when does "tested" equal empirical? Are you saying that "tested" assumptions have never been found with any fault? I think your going back to my point where I stated that you may want to put a value factor on your assumption based on this or that, but that just adds in more assumptions based off of more speculation and in the end you still have what you believe to be true based on what you believe to be more reasonable. That is your conclusion, which you are certainly entitled too, however, it still does not change the fact that your conclusion is based on assumption and speculation. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 10:07:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Hawks
Here's the million dollar question: What do you call it when your conclusion is also your assumption?
|
Unscience?
|
A theory.
|
No.
Here's how Wiki explains the definition of a scientific theory: | In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory. |
[My emphasis.]
ID clearly does not qualify as a theory in any regard, not by a mile. If you think otherwise, Bill, please show how it does, preferably in more than two words.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 10:23:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Rather then to get into a word game over the definition of empirical let's just say that when someone labels another "insane" simply for not believing verbatim what they believe to be a more reasonable assumption then this is a clear cut sign that one has been indoctrinated to the point of cynic, and IMO borderlines as empirical evidence as far as the claim that the one claiming the "insane" label is in fact an indoctrinated cynic. |
I've never seen anyone label you "insane" simply for failing to believe as they do, Bill. That might be your perception, but like with your understanding of the word 'empirical', you are mistaken. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
ID predicts.......
