Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Space

Journal Ethelred Unraed's Journal: ID vs. evolution: On a more serious note 87

Journal by Ethelred Unraed

All right, after my flippant remark about ID and evolution yesterday, here's a rather more thought-out journal for y'all to flame. This started as a post in response to Timex, but got out of hand. (Notice how I'm constantly doing this? Ah, I just love to ramble.)

Anyway, before I get into the nitty-gritty of the issue, let me remind our viewership that I am not by any means agnostic or atheist. I am an elected member of my parish's vestry; I am currently working on designing and typesetting the Eucharistic Prayerbook for the German Old Catholic Church (for which I wrote an English translation of one of the Eucharistic prayers); and I've even been known to design and build altars. I also attend church once or twice a week on average and am good friends with our parish priest.

Now on to the topic at hand.

In response to a post I wrote about intelligent design, Timex writes: This is exactly why I don't accept evolution as science, either. Interspecies evolution (aka macroevolution) has not been seen. Nobody has ever pointed to one animal and said, "See? Here's one animal, of the species 'foo'. Our group has followed the direct descendants over X generations, and we now have this animal, of the species 'bar'." The only evolution that has been observed in truth is microevolution, which is change within a species.

First off, before I continue, we need to understand what a "fact" is in the scientific sense. Within the scientific method, a "fact" is -- on one level -- just a bit of data used to support or refute a hypothesis; on another level, it is not something irrefutable, because in science there is no such thing, except the fact of our own personal existence (cf. Descartes, cogito, ergo sum: I think, therefore I am). Any good scientist will tell you that there is always a chance, however small, that an accepted "fact" will turn out to be wrong. What is accepted as "fact" simply means (among other things) "it fits the evidence better than any other model we know of", and "useable as the basis for further assumptions" -- that is, it is useful for making predictions.

Thus Newton's theory of gravity was accepted as fact for centuries. However, at some point evidence arose that Newton wasn't right after all, largely because of developments in instruments able to measure more accurately than Newton could ever have dreamed of. In other words, our ability to observe improved. Einstein was able to come up with a new theory that was better than Newton's, so Einstein's theory of general relativity is now the accepted fact. (Note how "theory" and "fact" in science are not incompatible.)

Yes, science is ultimately guesswork. But it's an educated guess based on logical, and above all testable, conclusions.

Now, returning to your point about accepting evolution as good science, no, we don't have much in the way of direct evidence of macroevolution, aside from a few cases where species haven't quite diverged yet (such as donkeys and horses). But on the other hand, we don't have any direct evidence of the Big Bang, subatomic particles, the existence of planets outside our Solar System or much else. Yet all of that is accepted (currently anyway) as scientific fact. The reason is because we can make a chain of testable, logical assumptions that explain those phenomena.

There is an old joke about the science student asking his professor about how the ancients could have been so stupid as to believe the Sun went around the Earth, and not vice versa. In reply the professor asked, "I wonder if it would have looked any different?" The point being that from observation with the tools available at the time, both are equally true.

I would also point out that your attack on evolution's basis of species formation is odd, because ID doesn't even try to attack evolution itself. It more or less says "evolution yes, but there's this Intelligent Designer up there guiding the process". You thus have a major inconsistency in your argument -- and I also note you don't provide a better explanation.

Your criticism of using the genome for the basis of further theory or explanation also strikes me as odd, because ironically Darwin and evolutionary theory actually slightly predate the theory of genetics, let alone of DNA. Mendel (himself a monk, I might add, and enthusiastic about Darwin's Origin of Species) observed that organisms pass on certain traits, but didn't know how. That doesn't make his theory of genetics any less true. We had to wait until later scientists discovered the existence of genetic material -- DNA -- in cells, then for more scientists to find what DNA looked like (the infamous double-helix), then how DNA worked (unzipping and interacting with RNA, amino acids and all that other funky stuff). In other words, theories evolve and improve over time as new information and new discoveries arise.

Which brings us back to what science is, and what ID is (and isn't). Science is not about "alternative viewpoints". It is about finding the best viewpoint (i.e. the simplest and most consistent explanation of the phenomena observed, on the basis of which one can make an accurate prediction) possible under the circumstances. The theory of evolution itself has changed -- some might say "evolved" -- since Darwin first proposed it, because Darwin did indeed get some things wrong, but his successors have refined and improved upon it. Thus currently, evolutionary theory -- in its current form, not as Darwin proposed it -- is the best we have.

I'll repeat what I said in the original post: 'ID tries to answer the why, which isn't science. Science is only interested in how. Science has as a minimum requirement that any notion to be accepted as "fact" must be testable. ID isn't testable. Therefore it isn't science. If you want to teach ID in schools, fine, but only in comparative religion or philosophy. Not in science class. Because ID isn't science.'

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ID vs. evolution: On a more serious note More

ID vs. evolution: On a more serious note

Comments Filter:
  • good job, eth.

    I would question whether evolutionary dead ends would argue against intelligent design- after all, if they were designed as they were, wouldn't they still be alive?

    But my conclusion is the same- leave science class for science, teach philosophy and religion in the humanities department. That's what it's for.
    • First off, thanks for the compliments.

      Secondly, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING UP AT THIS GODFORSAKEN HOUR? ;-)

      I mean, if I drag myself out of bed before 10, BoE is always sure to ask who this stranger is. *g*

      Once I seize power, I promise I will ban mornings.

      Cheers,

      Ethelred

      • oh, you didn't know the dragon was an early riser? oh yeah... up before the sun... poor unsuspecting peasants never know what hit them that early in the morning.

        and eth... good je. very good. although newton may be "wrong" he really isn't. i'm often fond of saying he was wrong (because, ultimately he was about a lot of things, and because he was a weirdo)... but einstein simply showed that newton's perspective breaks down at high energy and velocities. so, to us, humans, who exist at terribly low velocities
        • although newton may be "wrong" he really isn't.

          For common day-to-day purposes, no, he isn't -- but technically he is, for the reasons you stated. I was mainly using this to illustrate how science is self-correcting, and how "fact" in science is a rather different thing from what people usually think of as "fact".

          It's also not unlike how the old "solar system" model of the atom is still taught in schools. It's "wrong" in that we know now the atom looks quite different (for one thing, the electrons don't

      • Once I seize power, I promise I will ban mornings.

        If I may make one humble request.

        Upon the banning of mornings, also mandate that fast-food places be forced to offer around-the-clock breakfast menus.
        • Upon the banning of mornings, also mandate that fast-food places be forced to offer around-the-clock breakfast menus.

          All right, except for Wendy's. No particular reason, really. I just felt like being arbitrary.

          Your most merciful overlord,

          Ethelred

  • +1, Insightful.

    Especially the point about ID not being science and not applicable to science classes.

    The usual misunderstanding is, "But evolution is just a theory!" - when the person saying that doesn't actually know what a scientific theory is. They think a theory is merely a hunch or a guess - like a policeman having a theory about who murdered who based on gut feel just like you see in cop movies. They completely miss out the part of it needing to be testable.
    • I always took it to be that a hypothesis was a mere guess or hunch that is also testable, and that a theory is a hypothesis that has already survived some testing. In other words, you can’t just come up with a theory out of thin air, only a hypothesis. Guess I oughta look it up on Wikipedia and see what the correct definition is for today.

      I still may get around to printing up some GRAVITY: It’s only a theory. t-shirts. That oughta piss ’em off.

      • GRAVITY: It's only a theory

        But but but.....it's not a theory, it's the law! [thinkgeek.com]
      • I always took it to be that a hypothesis was a mere guess or hunch that is also testable, and that a theory is a hypothesis that has already survived some testing. In other words, you can't just come up with a theory out of thin air, only a hypothesis.

        This was my understanding, too.

        "Fact" was left to things like "one plus one equals two"; stuff that was provable past the "theory" stage.

        If I'm just not working on the same definitions as "science", at least I'm trying to be consistent.

        It would be really nice
        • It would be really nice if we all had the same dictionary.

          We do. Problem is, we all think we understand the definitions of these terms based on popular usage. Pay attention to how many times you or others in your office say something like “Well, in theory...” I’ve been correcting myself to say “Well, hypothetically speaking...” instead, and it’s been an experience both enlightening and annoying (both for myself and my coworkers). But at least it’s breaking me of the
    • I'll repeat what I said in the original post: 'ID tries to answer the why, which isn't science. Science is only interested in how. Science has as a minimum requirement that any notion to be accepted as "fact" must be testable. ID isn't testable. Therefore it isn't science. If you want to teach ID in schools, fine, but only in comparative religion or philosophy. Not in science class. Because ID isn't science.'

    This is the most interesting statement regarding Intelligent Design vs. Evolution I have heard i

    • I also would hesitate to say that ID is not science.

      I wouldn't. Well, I would grant you that ID tries to be good science, but ultimately it isn't, because it fails to make a testable assumption -- whether or not there is an Intelligent Designer in the first place.

      If you look at such questions as "Why does the viceroy butterfly look just like the monarch butterfly" you come up with an answer that explains *why*, not *how*.

      Well, why is it, then?

      (Bet you can't answer. ;-) )

      Some of the acheologic

      • Well, why is it, then?

        (Bet you can't answer. ;-) )

        Bet I can.... ;-)

        The monarch butterfly is one that tastes horrible to birds, and can even make them sick when they try to eat one of them. After eating one of these, birds avoid them. The viceroy looks close enough to the monarch that they benefit from the birds' avoidance of the monarch.

        As for the rest of your post, I will come back to it when I have a little more time. I am not disengaging, I just need a bit of time to think on my answer.

        • The monarch butterfly is one that tastes horrible to birds, and can even make them sick when they try to eat one of them. After eating one of these, birds avoid them. The viceroy looks close enough to the monarch that they benefit from the birds' avoidance of the monarch.

          Yes, but that doesn't really answer "why".

          If you don't see what I mean yet, imagine talking to a 3-year-old asking the question. "Why" ultimately leads you to territory well outside of science's purview.

          This is why "why" drives pare

            • Coward! You come back here!

            :-p

            I figured you would rather have an answer that's been carefully thought out than to have me just talk without thinking. I do enough talking with thinking as it is - ask my wife, she'll tell you.

            • I do enough talking with thinking as it is - ask my wife, she'll tell you.

              QED. :-)

              Hey, I'm just foolin'. Though I much prefer people to post half-assed things in my journal so I can make them look like fools and feel so much better about myself and really impress the teeming hordes of chicks who read Slashdot.

              I'm sorry, that should be teeming hordes of dicks, of which I am the titular leader.

              Huh-huh, he said "tit".

              Cheers,

              Ethelred

  • what eth said
  • Science has as a minimum requirement that any notion to be accepted as "fact" must be testable. ID isn't testable.

    Isn't that in turn a fallacy considering the previous paragraph regarding Newton and testing methods?

    If we had a functioning God-detector, we could say that yes, there is a God, or no, there is not, from that point we could make some educated and informed guesses about ID. Without a God, ID isn't possible. With a God, ID is a certainty (as all creation is supposed to come from him).

    /me needs

    • If we had a functioning God-detector

      I tried to make one myself, but I kept setting it off.

      Haw!

      Cheers,

      Ethelred

    • Without a God, ID isn't possible.

      That's not technically true. There are plenty of possibilities in which non-ethereal forces drive evolution via real or perceived intelligence. After all, if string theory pans out and the minutea at the quantum level turns out to follow all sorts of complicated little rules that complement the higher order physical rules, then, in theory, the process of evolution is predictable as if it were being driven by a goal so long as you know the starting conditions and have suffici

      • Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Iamthefallen ( 523816 ) *

        You're right, I'm just saying, because 1+1=2 in all cases we've found, it doesn't exclude the possibility that one day, after we have a better understanding of the way addition works, 1+1 might come out to be Orange.

        • Okay, that was kind of a bad example... heh.

          More along the lines of tryinig to argue that clouds can't float in the sky when I can look up and see them. Yes, technically I might be wrong, but the odds are so astonishingly poor that I'm wrong that it's not worth looking into the possibility.

          Most established theories, such as evolution, are like that. Yes, they COULD be wrong, but absent some new, astonishing information, the chance is so slim it's not worth actively pursuing.
        • I can disprove that easily. 1+1 tastes more like grape.

          To refer back to my little, ah, flamewar with Sol up above, grapes clearly evolved from apes. Grue-apes.

          Cheers,

          Ethelred

        • Re:Hmm (Score:2)

          by Tet ( 2721 )
          1+1 might come out to be Orange.

          Fool. Everyone knows that 1+1 = Prickle.

          • I don't know what kind of foolishness they teach you in Blighty, but down here everyone knows Prickle is an imaginary number.

            Of course, down here they also teach that arithmetic is best learned by shouting. EINS UND EINS MACHT ZWEI!

            Cheers,

            Ethelred

      • That's not technically true. There are plenty of possibilities in which non-ethereal forces drive evolution via real or perceived intelligence.

        Ya, but the anthropic principle really throws a wrench into things, particularly in string theory and notions of "vacua". One starts to get weird questions, like "could God -- if there is one -- have made the Universe any other way?", determinism and all manner of other headache-inducing things.

        Which is why "the Universe does/doesn't need a God" lines of reasoni

  • We have induced speciation under laboratory conditions, IIRC. I seem to recall a paper that described a process of exposing two populations of the same species of fruit flies to different (granted, very artificial) environmental stresses, and after some hundred generations they stopped being able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
    • both sub-species were still fruit flies. how does this experiment show that new types of insects could be created?
      • From a genetic standpoint, by definition they are "two new types", because they can't interbreed. We share 99-someodd percent of our genes with chimpanzees, but good luck trying to sire a child with one.

        This is already observable in nature as well -- the example of horses and donkeys that I mentioned. Sub-species start to diverge at some point, until their mutual offspring are infertile (horse + donkey = sterile mule); eventually, after enough generations have passed, they are unable to produce mutual off

        • From a genetic standpoint, by definition they are "two new types", because they can't interbreed. We share 99-someodd percent of our genes with chimpanzees, but good luck trying to sire a child with one.

          And God knows I've tried! It's fucking impossible, every damn position, every time of the month, fertility treatments, experts. No matter what we tried, Koko just wouldn't get knocked up! God, when I think of the time and money I've spent... ehr....

          Ahem

          Hi

          Didn't realize anyone was reading this.

          • It's OK, Iamthefallen. Can I call you I? Well, I, let me just say that there is help for you and your...rather hairy missus. You and I, ah, I and I, need to talk so that you and I (I mean I and you) can work on your wish to have a baby...something. Yes, I and your bride (your bride and I, that is, you) can, if I try, become proud parents. I should just give me a call, and I'll (me) provide you with my (I) secret.

            Sincerely I's,

            Ethelred

            • Nah, I think Koko was just being a fridgid barren bitch.

              I decided to try human females instead. Now I'm actively trying to come up with a way to not get the wife knocked up every few months.

              Funny that.

              And I don't spend nearly as much money on bananas anymore.

              • But when you and Koko came to me for counseling, it was obvious that there were latent aggression issues between you. I mean, when she was signing, her sign for "Iamthefallen" was -- well, I thought she was giving me the finger at first.

                Cheers,

                Ethelred

        • We share 99-someodd percent of our genes with chimpanzees, but good luck trying to sire a child with one.

          This one time, back in college...

          Oh, wait, you were the one who told me that story.
      • What eth said, but remember that the most important part of what he said is that the mutation that occurs merely has to make a new creature that can't breed with the parent because of genetic roadblocks.

        That's the primary difference between macro and micro-evolution. To argue that microevolution occurs but macroevolution doesn't you'd have to come up with some reason for why genes couldn't change such that the parent and child are not breedable together. Naturally, there's no logical reason why this can't h
    • I saw a really amusing insight some weeks ago, but I forget just where.

      Creationists sometimes argue that evolution isn't happening because no one has produced evidence of a "missing link" between species A and species C. If science later discovers an intermediate species B between A and C, creationists simply point out that there are now two links missing: the link between A and B and the link between B and C.
  • Recent fossil evidence suggests birds may have evolved from dinosaurs. It's not decisive yet, but it certainly is suggestive.

    BTW, you talk about the scientific method, which is distinctly a western mode of thinking. And yet, in other parts of the world (especially in Asia) there were many scientific and technologic breakthroughs over the millenia WITHOUT the scientific method. Clearly it is not the ONLY way to go about gaining scientific truth.
    • Clearly it is not the ONLY way to go about gaining scientific truth.

      But by definition, it is -- you said "scientific" truth, after all.

      And yes, some Asians did use the reductive scientific method (even if they called it something else), whereby they cast off less-accurate ideas in favor of better ones. The difference in Asia is this: in both Asia and Europe, for a very long time, such ideas were actively repressed by authorities who saw it as a challenge to their authority, but in Asia, the authorities

      • "[...] consider that one reason they got the upper hand in Europe was because Europe was a fractious bunch of mini-states in constant friction [...]"

        Oh, dear. You've been reading Jared Diamond again, haven't you? :-)
        • Actually, I haven't read him, no. I gather from your reference that you don't care much for him at any rate. ;-)

          The mechanism I pointed out, though, is one that many authors have noticed. (James Burke immediately comes to mind.) Europe's rise was fueled by competition both peaceful (Hanseatic League) and warlike (England vs. France vs. Hapsburgs). Science and technology were constantly drawn upon to strengthen the various powers in their competition with one another -- the longbow or the maritime clock or

          • Ooops. Not only did I miss my guess about you having read his stuff, but I gave you the wrong impression.

            Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is an effing brilliant synthesis that sets out to explain why Europeans conquered New Guinea, instead of the other way around. I think his explanation holds together very well. I won't screw up his work by trying to summarize his theory, except to say that it's based on geography. Its Pulitzer is well-deserved, and possibly insufficient. I call it a must-read.

            What
            • It's a very Burke-ish observation.

              <james_burke>And it changed...everything!</james_burke>

              Sorry. I guess I watched The Day the Universe Changed a few times too often. :-)

              At any rate, one of Burke's books that I highly recommend is Circles. Quite fun stuff. He also collaborated on The Axemaker's Gift, which has a lot of interesting perspective on the rise of various kinds of technology and how that affects society as a whole. The latter book got a bit too political (and polemical) for my tas

  • and i am also a religious person.

    the only thing that bugs me about evolution isn't the theory itself, but the way a select few proponents treat it like the end-all be-all power in the world. i see science shows on TV or articles in print making statements like, "millions of years of evolution have caused humans to behave like [x]," to which i always think, "no, millions of years of our behavior has caused us to evolve to be better at it." leaving all religious elements aside, evolution is the result of be
    • ...it isn't simply being isolated that causes them to diverge.

      Actually, the mere fact of isolation can cause divergence, since any mutations in one group won't propagate to the other group. Given enough time and enough mutations and you will have a whole new critter.

      • the key being: ...it isn't simply being isolated that causes them to diverge.

        as noted later when i said:

        if the species kept acting the same way and having the same environmental needs, the change would probably be less severe and slower, since the only difference from the mother species would be a smaller gene pool.

        where the gene pool includes the mutations specific to that pool.
  • (Aside: I hit reply to this JE when it had zero comments, and then fell asleep. I've just woken up, some hours later -- I guess my body's trying to tell me it needs some rest!)

    In general, I'm 100% in agreement that ID isn't science. By all means, teach it in a philosophy class, but not in science. However...

    ID tries to answer the why, which isn't science. Science is only interested in how.

    Really? Where does it do that? This is one of my big criticisms of religions in general (not just Christianity). T

    • From my (non-believer) position, ID would expect me to assume the existence of a supreme being, however unlikely that may be, and to accept that said being has been guiding our progress from amoeba to homo sapiens. How does that answer the "why" question? At best, all it does is move it one level higher -- no longer "why are we here", but "why is the intelligent designer there".

      Congratulations, now you know why I say ID is neither good science nor good religion. :-)

      Cheers,

      Ethelred

  • Where is the logical foundation for stating that if Darwinian Evolution is not 100% correct, then Crea-- err, Intelligent Design is?

  • Nobody has ever pointed to one animal and said, "See? Here's one animal, of the species 'foo'. Our group has followed the direct descendants over X generations, and we now have this animal, of the species 'bar'." The only evolution that has been observed in truth is microevolution, which is change within a species

    I'd just say that the reason nobody has seen it is because there were no people around to see it - they hadn't evolved yet.

    After all, if they can make senseless arguments, they'll probably fall

  • ...in my tanned and returned home form that I love you Ethelred?

    Very well written. :D Nothing remotely intelligent to add at this point.
  • The Futility of it all, by which I mean the futility of trying to use science as a tool of metaphysics (i.e. as a tool which attempts to answer the questions of motive forces in the creation of all that exists... was it mechanistic, deterministic, spiritual, guided, etc.)

    It is my view that science is a subset of The Greater and is a result of the magnificence that is existance. As science is subordinate to that glory, science never will be adequate to fully and satisfactorily account for life, the world, a
    • Yeah yeah yeah, so one can say homo sapiens 'evolved' from apes, but does that answer anything. 'Survival of the fittest'. WTF does THAT mean? Is that not begging the question? Is that not akin to saying "Survival of the survivors?".

      To be fair, Darwin never used that phrase. It was coined by the economist Herbert Spencer [wikipedia.org] and was never really adopted by evolutionists themselves. And yes, it is basically a tautology.

      Is that 'common sense' that does the weeding of bad from good from ridiculous to intri

      • The short answer is that we're able to make assumptions and decisions based on prior experience, and there is some evidence that the brain does what might be termed multitasking -- where the subconscious processes information, possibly even through dreams. At some point a Eureka moment comes, and there's your hypothesis. It is also something of a tautology to say we make "good decisions" in choosing hypotheses, because if we made bad ones, we wouldn't hear much about them in journals. ;-)

        Yes, that's a very
    • Does anyone truy believe that, say, eyelashes evolved because some species millions of years ago somehow mutated and developed proto eyelashes, and the fact that they had proto eyelashes made all the difference and made them able to survive and better mates? Or that they were somehow better hunters, and their proto eyelashes helped them enough to make the difference between survival and death.

      Eyelashes do indeed help you survive! They help you keep junk out of your eyes; say for example, volcanic ash cloud

      • Eyelashes do indeed help you survive! They help you keep junk out of your eyes; say for example, volcanic ash clouding your vision or dirt thrown at your face by someone trying to bash your skull in. When scary stuff can jump out and kill/eat you at any second, having your eyes working and dirt free is important.

        Right. Eyelashes are a good thing, but what I was driving at is to posit that the reason we have eyelashes is due to some mutation millions of years ago that somehow took hold because it made bette

  • Serious note?

    I fear we (human race) take ourselves too seriously.

    The likes of Timex have forsaken all reason for the sake of belonging to a teenage fan club. When I was 15, Metallica could do no wrong. Timex's Metallica is his Baptist church.

    Rock and roll.

    • When I was 15, Metallica could do no wrong.

      You dare suggest that they can do wrong?

      Er, I mean before the Black Album.

      I fear we (human race) take ourselves too seriously.

      One of my favorite sayings (can't remember its origin) is, "The proof that God has a sense of humor is that He created humanity."

      At any rate, I really don't have any particular problem with Timex being active in a Baptist church. More power to him, in fact. All I really care is that, if you establish a position, you better be abl

  • But a very good JE. Its postins like these that keep me coming back to the Dot. Thanks.
  • Thus Newton's theory of gravity was accepted as fact for centuries. However, at some point evidence arose that Newton wasn't right after all, largely because of developments in instruments able to measure more accurately than Newton could ever have dreamed of. In other words, our ability to observe improved. Einstein was able to come up with a new theory that was better than Newton's, so Einstein's theory of general relativity is now the accepted fact. (Note how "theory" and "fact" in science are not incomp
    • A fact is a recorded observation. When Newton let go of an apple, it fell to earth with an speed and velocity that N accurately measured within his avaliable precision. This is a fact.

      Well, yes, but I covered that when I wrote: 'Within the scientific method, a "fact" is -- on one level -- just a bit of data used to support or refute a hypothesis'.

      Irrefutable if you trust the observer. Ideally reproducable.

      "If you trust the observer". But even that's still ultimately questionable. If I boil pure wate

      • "If you trust the observer". But even that's still ultimately questionable. If I boil pure water under standard conditions, I expect it to boil at 100 C. There is always a chance, even if incredibly small, that it will boil at 200 C. Or 50 C. Or that everyone's instruments ever used to measure temperature are wrong. Which is why I wrote, '...on another level, it is not something irrefutable, because in science there is no such thing, except the fact of our own personal existence (cf. Descartes, cogito, ergo
        • Reading in things that aren't there when noting facts is probably among the bigger fallicies in the whole argument.

          What fallacy? You basically restated what I said. What is normally taken as scientific "fact" at its most basic -- a measurement -- can be wrong and is not infallible. Where is the fallacy?

          Cheers,

          Ethelred

          • Here's the fallacy: you said that "water boils at 100 degrees" is a fact. It isn't. Even if you stick your thermometer in the boiling water and record its temperature, you haven't recorded that water boils at 100 degrees. You've recorded that your thermometer noted 100 degrees when you put it in boiling water.

            Given that you know how to read your thermometer and we allow for human error (i.e., you do it a few times and then have someone else do it), there's no way to disprove the fact that your thermomet
            • Here's the fallacy: you said that "water boils at 100 degrees" is a fact. It isn't

              I didn't say it was a fact. I was referring to measuring, an act of collecting data -- "facts". And I was referring to the chance, however small, that those facts -- the measurements -- are wrong.

              Look, I think we're just talking past each other. I know what you want to say, which is more or less "facts are just bits of collected data". Which is why I said 'What is normally taken as scientific "fact" at its most basic --

              • Within the scientific method, a "fact" is -- on one level -- just a bit of data used to support or refute a hypothesis

                FWIW, that's not what I'm saying. I'd put the fact before the hypothesis -- i.e, a fact is something that a hypothesis tries to explain. But I do see what you mean: a fact is an essentially irrefutable bit of knowledge that a scientist references to support or refute a hypothesis.

                I also see the need for a broader term, but I don't think that it's a good idea to use "fact" to mean that. Ma

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful elimination? -- Don Knuth, "Structured Programming with Gotos"

Close