[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Fyron]

Gryphin, when used in Scientific terms, a Hypothesis is an unproven assumption about how something will work. A Theory is a hypothesis that is backed by proper evidence and experimentation, so it can be taken to be true. A Law is something that has been proven to be correct in all cases, and can be taken as a universal fact (until we find more situations in which the law could apply, and we have ot test it out to see if it is true, or if it is a special case of the bigger picture, like Newton's laws of gravitation and force).

This is another example of how dictionary definitions are not good to rely on for complex terms.

[Andrés]

http://www.concannon.net/wilmer/Wilmer's%20WebPage/SCIMETH.htm ] SCIENTIFIC METHOD [/url]

Edit: Link refuses to appear like a link.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, I see why Fyron is repeating himself so much. People won't see what is right in from of their faces if it doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions.

http://www.alternativescience.com/sc...censorship.htm is a page featuring some relatively recent (in the Last decade) examples of the scientific establishment refusing to allow criticism of evolution. You can probably do some reasearch Online and find other sources to prove that these people exist and what is describe really happened.

http://www.alternativescience.com is the main site, which includes some pages on 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism' a major book which lays out in fairly simple terms how the Darwinian picture of evolution doesn't work and never has.

http://www.alternativescience.com/sh...-Darwinism.htm is the direct link to the book outline and contents.

It's not about 'new' evidence. It's about the fraud of asserting that the old evidence was adequate. It wasn't. And anyone with academic or scientific credentials will be run out of their jobs for attempting to point this out. The author of this book, a professional journalist rather than an academic, was subjected to considerable attacks, including the usual character assassination and behind-the-scenes blacklisting.

Fyron:

The 'few sad cases' listed on that site are just what that one author is aware of. There is much, much more if you want to do some research. So in fact scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high. Science in the 'real world' is just like religion. I keep putting the evidence in front of your face and you keep refusing to acknowledge it. You are doing exactly what you accuse the 'religious' types of doing. Rejecting anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. As I said, there is far less difference between the so-called 'scientific' world view and the religious one than you or most people want to believe. And you are demonstrating it right here and now.

How do you assert that 'Evolution is not wrong.' when there is no proof that it is right? You keep saying that religion makes arbitrary assertions and then assert that science must be right even if it didn't have the evidence before and doesn't have it now. Huh? An honest 'scientist' would admit that we have no idea how life came to be how it is. Do you see the difference between asserting something is right because it's 'science' and 'not religion' versus simply admitting there is no certainty?

[Suicide Junkie]

Is there some particular reason why these people cannot come up with a better theory than evolution to explain things?

"Any model is better than none"

Since evolution is a model for the situation, and there are no decent alternatives, we will continue to use evolution.

[Gryphin]

Fyron, thanks
Andrés, thanks, :: saves link, goes and takes meds :::
I'll try to asorb that in the morning.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Is there some particular reason why these people cannot come up with a better theory than evolution to explain things?

"Any model is better than none"

Since evolution is a model for the situation, and there are no decent alternatives, we will continue to use evolution.

Yeah, anyone that questions the party line is run out of the field. Kinda hard to conduct research when your colleagues refuse to talk to you, reject your articles in peer-reviewed publications, and get you fired from your lab/university.

Stephen Jay Gould faced some fairly hostile reactions for merely proposing a slight modification of the theory. It's an on-going controversy though a bit less heated than it was. Do a web search on 'Punctuated Equilibrium' and read about it.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:51: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Suicide Junkie]

There is also this link:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html

PS
Baron:
So, have you googled it lately?
And do you have a link to a good anti-PE page on it?

The supershort SJ summary:
When you have huge herds intermingling, they all get shoved back to the average due to the effects of sexual reproduction and gene mixing, and there is a lot of stability.

When some Groups get cut off from the mainstream, they have a chance to become specialized from the main pop. Living in a unique environment, having a relatively small population (less averaging out of mutations, inbreeding, etc), being a group of relative freaks getting kicked out, and anything else you find to throw in.

Then if they get reconnected to the main swath of territory and happen to have an advantage, they take over in a few thousand years. Bam! If they don't, too bad, another group will get a shot later on; we have many millions of years and acres to work with.

Reminds me of the recent trend towards mixed "races" of people (and the generation of the Groups in the first place), and the whole killer bees thing. Also of the world wars (uberrace & all), but that's more politics and technology than just biology.

[ March 16, 2003, 05:07: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]