My blog about my experiences defending science

[Rach3]

I think is has been stated before, but it is worth emphisising that; in science nothing can ever be proved, only disproved. No one can ever claim that a theory is indisputably true (well they can but they'd be wrong). No matter how much evidence is presented in support of a theory, it only takes one piece of solid evidence to bring this theory into question. Even now there is debate into the theory of evolution, such as the "adaptive mutation" theory. I cannot tell you how serious these debates are as I am not a biologist, but still a debate occurs.

Any scientist who claims that a theory is 100% unquestionably is setting themself up for a large fall.

~H

Yes, and put this into perspective: what would a competing theory have to explain? The same juggernaut of evidence - speciation, fossil records... in essence it would have to be some variation or superset of evolution. The core phenomenology would be unchanged.

 

[Pengwuino]

OP as in the original post in the linked thread... not hte original post here

 

[Pengwuino]

I forget his name. He got a PhD in metallurgy at some third-tier school, then joined one of the ID institues and now goes on tour giving a standard talk. He's a stereotypical charlatan.

PhD in metallurgy? What's he doing talking about physics. Tell him to go... melt something...

 

[Rach3]

In that case, my criticism stands. I'm going back and editing it back in.

(hint: I am that other OP...)

 

[Rach3]

PhD in metallurgy? What's he doing talking about physics. Tell him to go... melt something...

Physics, Biology, Theology, he's an expert in it all.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, and put this into perspective: what would a competing theory have to explain? The same juggernaut of evidence - speciation, fossil records... in essence it would have to be some variation or superset of evolution. The core phenomenology would be unchanged.

Ah but let's not expose ourselves to the possibility of falling into the same trap physicists found themselves in before Einstein came along.

 

[Hootenanny]

Yes, and put this into perspective: what would a competing theory have to explain? The same juggernaut of evidence - speciation, fossil records... in essence it would have to be some variation or superset of evolution. The core phenomenology would be unchanged.

Yes, but one additional element to this theory, as far as I can deduce is that bacterial atleast exhibit some characteristic of Lamarkian evolution. That mutations that are advantageous appear, while those that are not simply do not occur. See this link for more information; http://www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/4103/topics/adaptive_mutation.html

Apologies to silkworm for hijacking your thread.

~H

 

[Rach3]

Ah but let's not expose ourselves to the possibility of falling into the same trap physicists found themselves in before Einstein came along.

What trap? Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.

 

[Hootenanny]

What trap? Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.

It would be more apt to consider Newtonian mechanics as an approximation of Relativity.

~H

 

[Rach3]

Yes, but one additional element to this theory, as far as I can deduce is that bacterial atleast exhibit some characteristic of Lamarkian evolution. That mutations that are advantageous appear, while those that are not simply do not occur. See this link for more information; http://www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/4103/topics/adaptive_mutation.html

Apologies to silkworm for hijacking your thread.

~H

Interesting, a mechanism competing with natural selection. Hardly evidence that natural selection never occurs, or isn't universally observed... Theories become more sophisticated and accurate over time; while much is thrown out, experimental evidence is here to stay.

 

[Rach3]

It would be more apt to consider Newtonian mechanics as an approximation of Relativity.

~H

That's what I did, you may have misread. Relativity extends Newtonian mechanics, which is recovered as c->infinity.

 

[Rach3]

Or, as ID'ers would call it... Newtonism. :rofl:

 

[Pengwuino]

What trap? Everywhere Newtonian mechanics was applied, it remains experimentally correct. SR is only relevant on what was then a very new regime of physics; it is, just as I said, a variation and a superset of Newtonian mechanics, which falls out in the limit c->infinity.

Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.

 

[Rach3]

Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.

Then I'm afraid you haven't made your point clear at all. What are you thinking about, gravity? Photons? EPR paradox? In each case (GR, QM), there is a limit in which purely classical behavior is recovered - the only regime which was experimentally accessible before then.

 

[Hootenanny]

Thats a very small part of what Einstein changed.

Exactly, GR for example completely changed our understanding of gravitation and our concept of space, time and motion.

~H

 

[Rach3]

But Newton's laws remain valid! That was never in question. Civil engineers don't need differential geometry to do their stuff.

 

[Pengwuino]

But Newton's laws remain valid! That was never in question.

Einstein didn't only theorize on gravity and motion...

 

[Rach3]

Einstein didn't only theorize on gravity and motion...

That's obvious. What exactly is your point?

 

[Hootenanny]

But Newton's laws remain valid! That was never in question. Civil engineers don't need differential geometry to do their stuff.

How about the mass - energy relationship? Before Einstein, they were considered separate entities, completely unrelated.

~H

 

[silkworm]

I think Rach3's point is that Newtonian physics still work when applied properly. So it wasn't proven wrong, it was just expanded.

 

[Rach3]

How about the mass - energy relationship? Before Einstein, they were considered separate entities, completely unrelated.

~H

Yes, the theory is completely different, our understanding of the universe changed drastically. The point is that the observations and phenomenology that were described by Newtonian mechanics, remain valid. They may be valid for completely wrong reasons, but they're still valid. My analogy was that, if evolutionary biology underwent an Einstein-like revolution, a lot of very important stuff would still be true - we'd still be seeing speciation, for instance. The new stuff might be far more predictive and general, but it couldn't contradict existing experimental observations.

 

[Rach3]

Here's a relevant organization to this thread.

National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools

http://www.natcenscied.org/

 

[silkworm]

Here's a relevant organization to this thread.

National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools

http://www.natcenscied.org/

Hey, thank you for the link. And, I just found the quote button. Things are looking up for me.

 

[Mk]

If you want it to say "Originally posted by Rach3" then you can just copy his text that you want to cite, and put

and [ /quote] tags around it. (without the space)

 

[silkworm]

Thanks Mk. I couldn't figure out how to pick and choose here, and I didn't see the quote button. I'm totally new here. I've posted a bit on other forums (the best of them being SFN), but I like the content here.

Note: I'm pretty much computer illiterate anymore, but I'm working on it.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

Interesting, a mechanism competing with natural selection. Hardly evidence that natural selection never occurs, or isn't universally observed... Theories become more sophisticated and accurate over time; while much is thrown out, experimental evidence is here to stay.

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science. Sure there are plenty of ways to determine the age of the Earth at given points and trace transitional and intermediate fossils... but natural selection gets into claiming the motivations or purpose of those transitions. Once you get into the "Why?" of a topic, you're entering the realm of philosophy, not pure science. And in this case, it does not hold up when scrutinized too closely anyway. What Darwin attributed to survival, ID theorists ascribe to a higher purpose.

On the subject of Einstein and Newton... once again you're both right.

In the 19th century, people were locked into the tunnel vision view of Newton mechanics. It could be said that Einstein turned that view on its ear. Or it could be said that he only added to it. The latter kind of diminishes the importance of his word, imo. But regardless, in either case, he changed the way that we perceive and apply Newton's laws. Today we are struggling to come up with ways to reconcile them because they have both been "proven" true, yet they often appear to conflict.

The same could be said of the original topic.

 

[Rach3]

In the 19th century, people were locked into the tunnel vision view of Newton mechanics. It could be said that Einstein turned that view on its ear. Or it could be said that he only added to it. The latter kind of diminishes the importance of his word, imo. But regardless, in either case, he changed the way that we perceive and apply Newton's laws. Today we are struggling to come up with ways to reconcile them because they have both been "proven" true, yet they often appear to conflict.

Newtonian mechanics is most definitely NOT in conflict with special (or general!) relativity - it smoothly falls out as a special case! And neither has been "proven" true - there's no such notion in experimental science.

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science...

Then propose an alternate mechanism(s) for antibiotic resistance, and find references to (or perform yourself) experiments which show that this mechanism(s) can in fact explain antibiotic resistance better than natural selection (which is generally accepted). Your paper must be peer-reviewed, of course - I'll accept Science, but Nature will also do.

The entirety of your post is unsubstantiated, and contradicts established science. I refer you to this forum's Posting Guidelines.

 

[Rach3]

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

 

[PIT2]

I plan on branching out to defending misrepresentations of science in other places, but those presented by the creationism/ID movement are the most pressing and hit closest to home so that's my current focus.

It is good to defend science, as long as u don't mistake it for an absolute path to truth, and thereby turn it into a religion of itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Study its strengths, weaknesses and boundaries for thy own good.

 

[Rach3]

"Thy"? :uhh:


(you probably meant "thine", or even more probably, plain old "your")

 

[PIT2]

I thought thy was old english ?
English isn't my first language so I am probably mistaken.

Anyway, for thine own good then.

 

[Rach3]

It is old english, and that's a problem. Use "your" unless you're being deliberately funny.

 

[PIT2]

They were more like 'wise words'

 

[silkworm]

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

Is this me? What are you talking about? Anything specific?

It is good to defend science, as long as u don't mistake it for an absolute path to truth, and thereby turn it into a religion of itself.

To me, religions have far different requirements that science can allow before being science anymore. Do you have any better suggestions? Any point?

 

[silkworm]

I put this in a separate post to make sure STARKRAVINGMAD saw it.

This is the third and final time I'm going to ask you, and if you don't answer this time I'll just assume you're not going to:

What is the definitive work of Intelligent Design?

I'm not looking for an attempt at a debate, I'm just looking for an answer.