Printable View
About theoretical quantum stuff..Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
a) most stuff can be tested
b) a lot of stuff is still being theoretically analyzed - if you find out it conflicts with things we can test, it's already falsified
c) we will be able to test it in the future, until then it's not proven
Fossil record. DNA. Embryology. Atavisms. Not a special case. Pay attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There's a difference between not being able to replicate something happened and not being able to falsify it. Evolution has lots of ways of being tested.
Lewk. Give us a single scientific shred of positive evidence for ID.
A couple of things though. It'so complex, it couldn't have happened naturally, isn't scientific evidence, it's an unsupported claim. Don't you dare use the word 'random'.
The other thing is that any arguments against evolution are merely that, arguments against evolution. They are not arguments in favour of ID.
What test can we someone administer to show that humans developed from monkeys? Answer is - they can't. Is it still part of science? Of course. That's my entire point that something does not necessarily need to be falsifiable in order to be part of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
True... I just re-looked at the thread title, man we've gone a little off course. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Your bizarre phrasing notwithstanding...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ermediates_ex3
Actually there are plenty of ways to falsify theories about human evolution including some of the tests that have been linked to many times so far (see Minx's link in the post above).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Furthermore there is a vast swathe of evidence for microevolution and macroevolution in general and there is zero evidence to indicate there is anything unique about humans meaning that observable evolution did not apply to us.
So 3 ways I can think of to falsify just off the top of my head.
1: Falsify evolution in general. In fact the evidence in favour is vast and its observable in practice.
2: Demonstrate a reason why humans are unique from the rest of nature. Not true.
3: The historical records etc linked to above. Again these actually support the theories and have continued to do so even for new discoveries made after the theories.
An example from Minx's link: One example of an interesting potential falsification is that decades to a century before fossils of the historical human-ape links in the evolutionary chain (such as the cro-magnus) were discovered, due to his theory of evolution Charles Darwin was able to theorise were they should be discovered (Africa) and were they should not (Australia). Not only ought there to be intermediary links (which there were subsequently discovered) but at least part of his theories could be falsified by finding them in the wrong place.
Needless to say the fossils, which had not been found when Darwin was conducting his science, were subsequently discovered in Africa and never have been in Australia.
Hopefully Lewk ignores me, but at any rate he won't get what this paper is about:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6297
I think it's a fair question about cosmology, but you get spat on if you say that to certain people...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Tangents on ID and evolution aside....you either didn't understand my question or decided to skate right over it. :sour:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I was asking why the GOP/RNC was so wrong in their predictions and strategies....even though they hired professionals (who use scientific methods to survey, poll, collect/compare/analyze data), AND they had access to all other polling data to aggregate.
It wasn't that they were anti-science or unwilling to adopt new technology. That criticism may hold true in other areas, like climate science deniers, or teaching Creationism in public schools. But when it comes to voters and voting, the RNC had the same information as the DNC. But someone.....party leadership, large donors, paid strategists (?) either weren't making the right conclusions.....or decided to use conservative media outlets to paint that distorted picture, and hope a deluge of propaganda could actually change the outcome.
There has to be a reason, or multiple reasons, to explain the GOP's general shell-shocked reaction to Obama's vistory. Right-leaning pundits and news sites were pumping up Romney's (and GOP's) chances for a win, spun convention or debate bumps, or daily blips upward, into their "mathematical models"....despite months of math telling them otherwise.
Some (rather cynical) people have suggested this was the reason behind new voter ID laws, all proposed by (R) dominated legislatures, or having a (R) Governor. ie, If they couldn't win on their policies or demographics (with a shrinking white.male.southern.base), they'd try to win by suppressing votes that traditionally go (D) -- minorities, women, youth, immigrants, working-class or poor.
I'm not suggesting that's true, but if it is....it might explain some of the schizoid bifurcation within the GOP. Perhaps they relied too heavily on old-fashioned powers of persuasion (aka propaganda) from right-leaning media or "news" agencies? WSJ was very busy posting articles from all manner of academics, as well as business leaders; not only pushing for a R/R win, but trying claim they would win.
Sorry for being long-winded, or combining too many things in my post, but it seemed important to suss out political science / social science / marketing / media. We have a thread about "NYT Faux Economics". Years ago, we had a thread about "NYT Liberal Media Bias". And we've also debated if Academia or the Press is presenting "facts" or pushing agendas....
So much for debating the position and not the person. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/he...mpaign.html?hp Social science has no effect, right people? :o
And if he would of lost this wouldn't have been mentioned. Do you think Obama won because of this? Or were you suggesting Obama was going to win months ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
This would certainly explain why Romney so drastically underperformed in swing states (something that was already seen in the polls months ago). I'm inclined to think it gave Obama an extra percent or two. He probably would have won anyway, but it would have been a much closer contest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
From your article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Thirteen percent of those polled in the National Survey of High School Biology openly advocated creationism — the belief that God created Earth and humans, as told in the Bible's Book of Genesis — or intelligent design, the theory that a higher power, not natural selection, guided evolving species
The Kitzmiller v Dover case that I referred you to above ruled that the teaching of ID as science in public schools was unconstitutional.
Those 13% of biology teachers are therefore consciously acting in violation of your constitution, and are subject to the consequences thereof.
For those of you trying to reason with Lewk on the evidence for the evolution of man, through the use of clear and descriptive articles at the likes of talkorigins.org, don't bother, it's futile.
Any and all such attempts to reason with the IDists/Creationists has been and will continue to be futile. Utterly so. God's word cannot be undone.
The best those of you in Backwatersville USA can do is support organisations like NCSE, NAS, AU and the ACLU in their legal challenges to attempts by IDists/Creationists to alter the teaching of evolution in public schools.
It is this battlegound - the next generation - that the IDists/Creationists have declared as the theatre in which they think they can wield the most influence.
All your nicely reasoned posts backed up by journals and scientific evidence just fall on deaf ears, and will continue to do so. You need to invoke the law, unfortunately, to stop the lunacy reaching your next generation.
This strategy is working. Any such attempts by IDists/Creationists to intefere with school curricula, where legal challenges have been brought, have failed.
I can't remember whether it's in Surely You Are Joking or Who Cares What Other People Think, but I recommend reading Dick Feynman's impressions about the US public education system material. It is very depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Behavioral research has been used for decades. Especially by Madison Ave. and marketers, but also in the political arena. Question is -- why did R/R and GOP use the available data when making campaign ads to rile up their base -- but ignored how many people they pissed off? Did they really think using Fox News or conservative media as proxy to motivate would also increase voter turn-out? Seriously, who was kidding whom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Do they even WANT to increase voter turnout?
My primary argument is the definition of science as a reason ID can't be taught in schools. In fact even if its not science that's not a decision for the courts - but for the local school board. Only by making a bit of a stretch and saying that ID = religion and then stretching the 1st amendments establishment clause to mean that any religious thought = establishing a religion (completely contrary to the founders thoughts on the matter) does ID become ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
We want to increase our base turnout. I am actually irritated at the bipartisan "everyone should vote" mantra. I don't want the uninformed stupid people to vote. The message shouldn't be "Vote!" It should be "research the issues, understand the political positions and then vote."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Why should non-science be taught in a science class? Surely scientists should decide what is science and what is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That's funny coming from somebody who thinks ID is science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
ID is religion. It's pretty clear. Provide please any scientific evidence for ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I think we need to make a distinction between what is science and what is not science and between what is horseshit and what is not horseshit.
Just because something is 'scientific' in the sense we've been using it here, doesn't mean it's not also horseshit. early theories about the æther were scientific in that they proposed a hypothesis, made testable predictions and so on. They were also horseshit. There is no scientific evidence for the æther because it doesn't bloody exist, but that doesn't mean the theory of the æther wasn't science. It was. It was just wrong science.
And the reason we don't teach kids about the æther in science class isn't that it's not a scientific theory, it's that it was wrong.
The reason ID is not science isn't the lack of 'scientific evidence', the reason is that it's not falsifiable - there is no conceivable evidence that could possibly prove it wrong, and it is therefore useless. It is, in the words of a well known physicist (well known to other physicists, anyway), "not even wrong". It thus belongs under the purview of philosophy/religion.
However, even if ID were scientific it also has to prove itself to be of some value to earn it's place in a science class room. It has to show itself to be not horseshit, which is where the lack of evidence, predictions and so on comes in.
Various versions of ID come with specific claims/predictions/arguments that are demonstrably wrong, gotta give 'em that much at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Aren't those just old skool creationism, though, which was blown out the water the second anyone with a relevent education took the trouble to refute it?
Even assuming you are correct that's not for the courts to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki