Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
God, i should have bet money....
The Big Bang theory
Darwin's theory of evolution
The greenhouse gas theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Those are you three examples of theories contradicting the evidence?
Suddenly, your economic/political beliefs make a lot more sense.
I suppose you could argue over the big bang. That fact that you have to make up stuff like "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics to make it work means that you still have a theory that fits the evidence even though you have no evidence that inflation was even possible. Then there's cold, dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence that they exist because they're cold and dark, but we infer their existence to make our theories work. But entities that are inferred are not scientific, they are metaphysical.
Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence,
Of course, now we've got epigenetics which shows that acquired characteristics CAN be inherited, but still no one seems to want to jump off the Darwinian band-wagon.,
Then there's the greenhouse gas theory which has been falsified in a number of ways. CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere because the gas cannot escape the tropopause and get into outer space. So the surface gets its warming from there. So how come the surface is warming faster than the troposphere. How can the surface be warming faster than the source of the warming? It can't.
So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.
You can't know that, because it isn't true. And we know this absolutely, right?
We can say that for sure? So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.
It cannot be wrong? So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.
Any theory, any chain of logic starts with assumptions, even yours. You disagree with the assumptions of course, but the fact they exist is not in itself a problem.
In what particular? Darwinian evolution is such a broad theory I'd have thought it was hard to falsify at all.
Well they don't need to, since instances of bacteria altering their own genome in response to environmental conditions, or stealing genetic traits from others, doesn't invalidate the theory. It's a variation, and it invalidates some of the rather pompous writing that surrounds the subject, but the science is still sound.
Because dense matter absorbs energy faster than thin gases do? Go look at the sidewalk on a hot day. Which is hotter, the stone or the air above it?
I suppose you could argue over the big bang. That fact that you have to make up stuff like "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics to make it work means that you still have a theory that fits the evidence even though you have no evidence that inflation was even possible. Then there's cold, dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence that they exist because they're cold and dark, but we infer their existence to make our theories work. But entities that are inferred are not scientific, they are metaphysical.
Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence, and when theory doesn't fit observation we're supposed to say that the theory is falsified, but with Darwinism most scientists don't. They're just too committed to the paradigm I suppose.
Of course, now we've got epigenetics which shows that acquired characteristics CAN be inherited, but still no one seems to want to jump off the Darwinian band-wagon. But the day will come. I have every confidence in that.
Then there's the greenhouse gas theory which has been falsified in a number of ways. CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere because the gas cannot escape the tropopause and get into outer space. So the surface gets its warming from there. So how come the surface is warming faster than the troposphere. How can the surface be warming faster than the source of the warming? It can't. The GHG theory is falsified.
Every statement in this post is demonstrably wrong. I am saddened that so much inaccuracy has condensed into one place.
So we have to say that for the universe to be what it is today, the big bang had to have been followed by a brief, but very significant inflation which, unfortunately, couldn't have happened according to our laws of physics.
Not at all. We should expect that a scientific theory starts with observed facts.
This is called "punctuated equilibrium," and it is a controversial issue but Darwinians who have sought to address it, in particular Stephen Jay Gould, receive heavy criticism ... simply because he brought the problem to public attention.
Why does that not invalidate the theory? The neo-Darwinian theory is completely mechanistic. Natural selection working on random mutations is a completely mechanistic process. If the organism responds in ways that you describe or through the epigenome, then, at a minimum, you have added another mechanism that isn't included in the model.
That would be true if the "surface" measurements were literally "surface" measurements, but they're not. They are surface "atmospheric" measurements. They are taken about 6 feet above the surface.
But it isn't just a problem between the surface and the tropopause. The lower troposphere is also warming faster than the middle troposphere, and it should be the other way around. So the total pattern of warming is the opposite of what the GHG theory predicts.
At least you give me credit for being able to state my argument succinctly. But your reply, I fear, is a bit too succinct since it offers no evidence at all and is merely a dogmatic statement. Have you nothing better to offer?
I suppose you could argue over the big bang. That fact that you have to make up stuff like "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics to make it work means that you still have a theory that fits the evidence even though you have no evidence that inflation was even possible.
Then there's cold, dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence that they exist because they're cold and dark, but we infer their existence to make our theories work. But entities that are inferred are not scientific, they are metaphysical.
Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence, and when theory doesn't fit observation we're supposed to say that the theory is falsified, but with Darwinism most scientists don't. They're just too committed to the paradigm I suppose.
Of course, now we've got epigenetics which shows that acquired characteristics CAN be inherited, but still no one seems to want to jump off the Darwinian band-wagon. But the day will come. I have every confidence in that.
Then there's the greenhouse gas theory which has been falsified in a number of ways. CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere because the gas cannot escape the tropopause and get into outer space. So the surface gets its warming from there. So how come the surface is warming faster than the troposphere. How can the surface be warming faster than the source of the warming? It can't. The GHG theory is falsified.
That is not true for theories; theories can have some conflicting evidence. You're thinking of laws; laws must not have any conflicting evidence.Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence, and when theory doesn't fit observation we're supposed to say that the theory is falsified, but with Darwinism most scientists don't. They're just too committed to the paradigm I suppose.
Clearly, you don't want to learn about Alfred Korzybski!boneyard bill
All our theories and laws are made up. The universe is what it is. What we call laws and theories are notreality. My favorite line, 'the map is not countryside'.
I know, I know...FRDB April 9 said:Speakpigeon said:Wiki: Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory ".steve_bnk said:'The map is not the countryside' originates in GS
EB
steve_bnk said:heehee. Any schmo can google and try to appear knowledeable...I read his book aound 40 years ago....if you find territory vs countryside an issue knock yourself out.
We should expect that a scientific theory starts with observed facts.
No, we shouldn't. Science starts with wild-ass guesses and speculation, just like everything else. It ends with observed facts - the observations test the hypothesis.
Clearly, you don't want to learn about Alfred Korzybski!
I know, I know...
You did reply this:
Now, can you improve on you stock response?
EB
Newtonian mechanics was unable toacciunt for experiments at the atomic scale and at high relativespeeds. In response quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics weresynthesized, or 'made up' if you prefer.
What are the laws of physics for expansion that inflation is defying?
No, we shouldn't. Science starts with wild-ass guesses and speculation, just like everything else. It ends with observed facts - the observations test the hypothesis.
You also appear to be confusing theories with hypotheses. An individual hypothesis gets tested by exposure to the facts. Theories are broader, and stand and fall according to the utility they display as a means of describing the universe and how it works, and in generating testable predictions. A single prediction that is falsified generally calls for more investigation - the Theory itself stands or falls as to whether it remains useful as a framework.
So when you say that there are problems with Inflation, or punctuated equilibrium, you're taking stuff that scientists already know, and are already looking at within the context of the Theory, and citing not abandoning the Theory as a reason to mistrust the scientists involved.
And you know, maybe some of them are prats. But this isn't an issue around the science at all, you're not citing anything that would cause us to doubt the conclusions as being terribly wrong. You're trying to use the usual and typical features of the evolution of a Theory to try and cast doubt on the motivations of scientists in general. And while we can't know for certain why you would seek to do this, no doubt some will come to the conclusion that this is somehow bound up with your political opposition to actions intended to combat Climate Change.
I'm sure people are more than happy to discuss individual scientific questions. But there doesn't seem to be much call to either dismiss the entire scientific enterprise, or to cast all of science as being politically motivated. In the spirit of compromise, however, I'm happy to regard Dawkins as a bit of an ass.
Possibly, but this is a political claim rather than a problem with the science, particularly since you're citing a scientists disagreeing with each other.
Because the model is a framework to contain individual mechanisms, hypotheses and observations, and not a sweeping decisive statement intended to annoy posters on message boards. I appreciate that many people who enjoy making sweeping statements treat it as the latter, but that doesn't invalidate the process.
Which is still close enough to the surface to be warmed by it.
This is the same point again, isn't it? Only with the words 'near the surface' being replaced with 'lower troposphere'.
stv-bnk writes:
Quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics were not "made up." They were responses to observations and as a result of these observations, Newtonian mechanics was abandoned. Newtonian mechanics was falsified even though it still may be used in many applications where the mathematics was simpler. But, by the same token, until the onset of computers, the Ptolemaic system was still used in ocean navigation. Nonetheless, no one has argued that it wasn't falsified.