|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 10:30:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| 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. |
No, it was yours.| One does science, however, by testing assumptions. |
I never disputed this. |
Yes, you do dispute, you just don't realize it because you don't know what 'empirical' and 'assumption' mean.| Can you, Bill, point to even a single untested assumption within the theory of evolution? |
Since when does "tested" equal empirical? |
Once again, you not knowing what 'empirical' means is hampering your ability to have a rational discussion about this.| Are you saying that "tested" assumptions have never been found with any fault? |
I never said any such thing. I asked you a question. You have failed to answer it.| 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. |
That's not my conclusion, you're just fabricating a strawman. Out of what? My question. And it seems that the answer to my question is "no," then - you cannot point to even a single untested assumption within the whole of the theory of evolution.
Tested assumptions are no longer assumptions, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 10:37:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
And gradually, as new information trickles in, those conjectures will be fleshed out.
|
More speculation.
|
How so? It is happening even as we speak.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 11:12:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
|
Bingo!
I knew Bill couldn't come up with a single example. He just sidesteps clumsily instead. Sad, really.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 11:18:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
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.
|
I never made the claim that ID was a theory nor did I deny that TOE was. My point was that fish-to-philosopher evolution was a belief that is based on speculation and assumptions, therefore, shares no empirical knowledge as to the validity of itself. I fully understand that you believe fish-to-philosopher evolution has many more reasons for you to accept the theory then say, ID. But again, that just adds in more assumptions and more speculation as the probability factor you might assign to fish-to-philosopher, and also the probability factor you would assign to ID, would be based on assumptions and speculation as well.
|
"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 : 11:53:25 [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. |
No, it was yours. |
Another assumption.
| One does science, however, by testing assumptions. |
I never disputed this. |
Yes, you do dispute, you just don't realize it because you don't know what 'empirical' and 'assumption' mean. |
I do realize that fish-to-philosopher evolution is not an empirical observation, but rather an assumption based on a belief, rather then based on a known.
| Can you, Bill, point to even a single untested assumption within the theory of evolution? |
Since when does "tested" equal empirical? |
Once again, you not knowing what 'empirical' means is hampering your ability to have a rational discussion about this. |
I know that fish-to-philosopher evolution has not been empirically observed and therefore is an assumed occurrence.
Are you saying that "tested" assumptions have never been found with any fault? |
I never said any such thing. I asked you a question. You have failed to answer it. |
So we agree then that assumptions and more speculation can come from tested assumptions? And that testing an assumption could lead to a false conclusion or inconclusive?
Again, I don't doubt that you believe yourself to be right on fish-to-philosopher evolution. I am just saying that you cannot make the claim that you know you are right. Believing your right and knowing your right are two entirely different claims.
| 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. |
That's not my conclusion, you're just fabricating a strawman. Out of what? My question. |
That's why I said "I think" rather they "you are." Your correction is noted.
| And it seems that the answer to my question is "no," then - you cannot point to even a single untested assumption within the whole of the theory of evolution. |
As I have already said, rather then go down that endless tangent, I believe you can answer your own question here by answering mine. Are you saying that no speculation or assuming, tested or untested, exist in the who TOE, from fish-to-philosopher?
| Tested assumptions are no longer assumptions, Bill. |
Always? What if the tests come back on the assumption as inconclusive? They have been tested and they are still assumptions, therefore, a tested assumption. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 12:18:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe.
|
There must be something incredibly consoling in limiting yourself to what you believe and justifying it as reasonable.
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.
|
Denying empirical, as in empirical evidence, seems unreasonable, perhaps even irrational, and maybe even borderline insane. There is little regard for what one believes when it comes to the scientific consideration of empirical evidence. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 12:18:45 [Permalink]
|
| The creationist has his own weird little fantasy version of what evolution predicts, and he has made what is actually to his mind a logical conclusion: that because the real world doesn't look anything like what his version of evolution predicts, scientist's version of evolution (which, of course, is nothing like his) must be wrong. - PZ Myers |
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 12:24:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Another assumption. |
Nope, because you said so.| I do realize that fish-to-philosopher evolution is not an empirical observation, but rather an assumption based on a belief, rather then based on a known. |
What isn't known about it, Bill?
By the way, your use of "empirical observation" continues to demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the word "empirical." You really should look that word up before you continue to use it.| I know that fish-to-philosopher evolution has not been empirically observed and therefore is an assumed occurrence. |
What is assumed about it? This is your chance to shine, Bill.| So we agree then that assumptions and more speculation can come from tested assumptions? And that testing an assumption could lead to a false conclusion or inconclusive? |
Yes, but what does that have to do with the theory of evolution? You have yet to offer even a single assumption within it, so talking about how such assumptions can lead to this-or-that is putting the cart before the horse.| Again, I don't doubt that you believe yourself to be right on fish-to-philosopher evolution. |
How is that? What is my position on it? Do you know, or have you simply assumed that because I'm challenging your beliefs, mine must be diametrically opposed?| I am just saying that you cannot make the claim that you know you are right. |
And you haven't yet shown why you think that's true of evolution in particular. You just keep repeating your claim as if it's self-evident.| Believing your right and knowing your right are two entirely different claims. |
Yes, and that has nothing to do with evolution in particular because the same is true of your knowledge of the location of your mailbox.| As I have already said, rather then go down that endless tangent, I believe you can answer your own question here by answering mine. Are you saying that no speculation or assuming, tested or untested, exist in the who TOE, from fish-to-philosopher? |
And your attempts to shift the burden of proof are getting downright boring, Bill. Support your claim that there are untested assumptions with the theory of evolution. Just one will do.| Tested assumptions are no longer assumptions, Bill. |
Always? What if the tests come back on the assumption as inconclusive? They have been tested and they are still assumptions, therefore, a tested assumption. |
Way to unproductively split hairs, Bill, rather than add to the discussion.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 12:49:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by HalfMooner
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.
|
I never made the claim that ID was a theory nor did I deny that TOE was. My point was that fish-to-philosopher evolution was a belief that is based on speculation and assumptions, therefore, shares no empirical knowledge as to the validity of itself. I fully understand that you believe fish-to-philosopher evolution has many more reasons for you to accept the theory then say, ID. But again, that just adds in more assumptions and more speculation as the probability factor you might assign to fish-to-philosopher, and also the probability factor you would assign to ID, would be based on assumptions and speculation as well.
|
Well, actually you did call ID a theory, quite baldly: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.
|
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:23:32 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I know that fish-to-philosopher evolution has not been empirically observed and therefore is an assumed occurrence. |
What is assumed about it? This is your chance to shine, Bill. |
It is believed that man's line of decent can be traced back to the primordial warm pond or sea. This is an assumption.
| Believing your right and knowing your right are two entirely different claims. |
Yes, and that has nothing to do with evolution in particular because the same is true of your knowledge of the location of your mailbox. |
Yes, and that has nothing to do with mailboxes in particular because the same is true of your knowledge of fish-to-philosopher evolution.
| Tested assumptions are no longer assumptions, Bill. |
Always? What if the tests come back on the assumption as inconclusive? They have been tested and they are still assumptions, therefore, a tested assumption. |
Way to unproductively split hairs, Bill, rather than add to the discussion. |
And that is my point of this whole discussion. There would be millions of hairs (unknowns) in the fish-to-philosopher version of evolution that are not considered in the conclusion, sometimes to be tossed aside as splitting hairs. Problem is is that it is all speculation on how little, or great, split hairs would have an effect on fish-to-philosophers. And one failed assumption can lead in succession to many conclusions now being wrong. How many of these unknown variables could exist? That answer would have to be speculative.
|
"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 : 13:27:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by HalfMooner
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.
|
I never made the claim that ID was a theory nor did I deny that TOE was. My point was that fish-to-philosopher evolution was a belief that is based on speculation and assumptions, therefore, shares no empirical knowledge as to the validity of itself. I fully understand that you believe fish-to-philosopher evolution has many more reasons for you to accept the theory then say, ID. But again, that just adds in more assumptions and more speculation as the probability factor you might assign to fish-to-philosopher, and also the probability factor you would assign to ID, would be based on assumptions and speculation as well.
|
Well, actually you did call ID a theory, quite baldly: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.
|
|
Yet again, your belief is based on speculation and assuming and not on a known. You've demonstrated my whole point on belief in fish-to-philosophere evolution in a nutshell. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And that is my point of this whole discussion. There would be millions of hairs (unknowns) in the fish-to-philosopher version of evolution that are not considered in the conclusion, sometimes to be tossed aside as splitting hairs. Problem is is that it is all speculation on how little, or great, split hairs would have an effect on fish-to-philosophers. And one failed assumption can lead in succession to many conclusions now being wrong. How many of these unknown variables could exist? That answer would have to be speculative.
|
How many times by how many people does the same request need to be made before you will either support an assertion with evidence or cease making that assertion. Give us one untested assumption effecting the ToE. Just one. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:48:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
It is believed that man's line of decent can be traced back to the primordial warm pond or sea. This is an assumption. |
No, that's the conclusion. You've got the theory precisely backwards.| Believing your right and knowing your right are two entirely different claims. |
Yes, and that has nothing to do with evolution in particular because the same is true of your knowledge of the location of your mailbox. |
Yes, and that has nothing to do with mailboxes in particular because the same is true of your knowledge of fish-to-philosopher evolution. |
Once again, unproductive.
| And that is my point of this whole discussion. There would be millions of hairs (unknowns) in the fish-to-philosopher version of evolution that are not considered in the conclusion, sometimes to be tossed aside as splitting hairs. Problem is is that it is all speculation on how little, or great, split hairs would have an effect on fish-to-philosophers. And one failed assumption can lead in succession to many conclusions now being wrong. How many of these unknown variables could exist? That answer would have to be speculative. |
If I go back to your example of a gascan and matches at an arson, and I find that the soot is correct for a gasoline fire, and I find a witness who puts Joe Blow at the scene, and I find some of Joe's clothes in his garbage, and I find the same soot in Joe's clothes as at the scene, and a search warrant produces a monogrammed pocket watch in Joe's house which belonged to the owner of the arsoned property, then you're telling me that because we don't know whether Joe entered the property with his left foot or right foot first, we cannot convict him of the crime.
The "big picture" is clear with regard to evolution, Bill. You're looking at all the details that have yet to be filled in, and claiming that the theory is "based on" them. It's not, because you've got things backwards. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:55:54 [Permalink]
|
Here's the funny part....
Bill, are you or are you not 100% certain that your god exists?
I already know your answer, because you have made it quite clear in the past.
So now, if you really agree that there can be "no real knowledge", you must also admit that your certainty in a deity is based upon an assumption, and therefore (as you claim with ToE) it must be speculative.
Billscott admits that his deity belief is speculative.... who'd a thunk?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2007 : 13:56:19 [Permalink]
|
| So much for forensic science. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
