BS: Logic and the laws of science

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 09:29 AM

It's all too much! I can't cope!
Excuse me if I just pick a few things out.

DMcG
The universe does what it does - two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen - and the laws are mere human diescriptions.
To which Joe Offer replied -
But the combining of two hydrogen atoms with one of oxygen into a stable substance like water makes logical sense, doesn't it?
Does it? What if they did something else? Wouldn't that be just as logical? Lots of elements combine to form unstable substances, some don't combine at all. The logical rule seems to be do exactly what you do whatever that may be.

I also like DMcG's post of 15 Jun 16 - 05:48 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 09:46 AM

Steve Shaw previously
When we talk about a law of nature we are not talking about that which must be obeyed but about that which we see consistently happening in our experiences of particular phenomena.
and more recently -
As for laws of science, well that seems to imply laws that are human constructs rather than explanations of the way things behave, as science is a human endeavour. Laws of nature isn't great either but it sort of removes that human imposition part of it.
Bit of a U-turn there. Could you give me an example of one of these laws of nature that isn't a human construct?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 09:56 AM

I'd also like to thank Ed T for the links. Much food for thought if not an easy read.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 10:25 AM

If you'd used words like "the cogito" and "Noetherian" at the start of this, I'd have known better than to get mixed up in it.

However, the relationship of the mind to the cosmos (plus a possibly infinite number of other universes, increasing infinitely at every instant of time) may not be resolvable at our current stage of knowledge/ignorance.

Fortunately the everyday consequences of the correct answer appear to be nil.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 10:57 AM

Ha ha! I promise to moderate my language from now on!

But more seriously, please, world-at-large, do continue to contribute. Don't   imagine I have spent a lifetime studying this stuff. Most of what I know from philosophy, for example, I learnt when my daughter studied it; I never have myself, but she does need some keeping up with

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 11:53 AM

Seems donuel you can do what no one else has done if you can show us evolution , by which, I trust you realise I do not mean observable phenomenon such as natural selection, mutations, or even epigenetics. I presume snail was also asking the same when he orinally asked/challenged some threads back.....I don't think I miss remember , notwithstanding Steves protestations to the opposite.                                                       There has been some discussion about the brain or mind. Here's a thought ....if we are a product of evolution , then so is your brain, or minds. Since evolution is a continuing process according to its adherents, why should we trust anything you say , as your reasoning might be just a result of randomness!?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 11:58 AM

Richard Feynman on laws of nature

and how lucky we are to find them

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 11:59 AM

What U-turn?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 12:08 PM

Right! Now for Evolution.

Pete from seven stars link
Just a little reminder....not only did snail not like Steve saying....evolution is true..., but issued the challenge ...show me some evolution....    Now it would seem logical if it cannot be demonstrated, ie, if you cannot show us some evolution, that to say evolution is true, is a statement of belief rather than substantiated fact. And to say that it is true, seems to be at variance to the oft repeated claim that everything in science is provisional.
I never thought I'd say this but "Thank you, Pete". That is a concise and accurate summary of my position although I suspect that what you conclude from it may be a little different from my intention. Quite why Steve denies that I asked him to show me some evolution I don't know. I asked repeatedly and he consistently failed to do so.

Steve Shaw
Because evolution is not science. Evolution is a natural phenomenon that would exist whether we sentient beings were here to ponder it or not (though, of course, it did produce us). Do you deny that?
Yes, I deny that evolution is a natural phenomenon.
The world is full of living organisms of every imaginable and a great many unimaginable sorts. Some of these, like humans and chimpanzees, closely resemble each other; others are vastly different; some have lesser or greater resemblance. These are the natural phenomena that we are presented with. Up until two or three hundred years ago, the prevailing explanation of all this was that God created each species fully formed and they remained unchanged for the following 6000 and something years. Gradually, a better idea emerged (evolved?) and came to be known as evolution. Darwin gives a good account of this in a sort of preamble to Origin of Species added after the first edition I think.
Evolution involving descent from common ancestors and gradual change over long periods of time is the best explanation we have for these similarities and differences and probably the best we will ever have. It is, nonetheless, a theory and as such cannot be described as "true".
One of the problems with seeing it as a theory is that no single individual published a major work presenting it as such. It is the combined effort of many individuals over a long time.
If you still insist that it is a natural phenomenon, then I will say again as I have said many times before, "Show me some evolution.".
If you don't like my saying that evolution as a natural phenomenon (not the theory) is true, then you're saying that it's not true.
No I am not; I am saying that it is not a meaningful statement.

Yesterday I asked "could I, at least, ask you to pause and consider why I have trouble with statements like "Evolution is true!"?"
Apparently not.

LATE BREAKING NEWS!
Donuel
If someone truly wants to see evolution , if you are not just making a rhetorical request, I can literally show you the process and not just the results.
Yes please. Bring it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 12:33 PM

But evolution isn't "random" in the sense you mean: it's an example of cause and effect, not just a crazy sequence of unrelated events.

But even if it were, and if then nothing one thinks or says is trustworthy, the same condition would, unfortunately, apply to your own assertions.

Why should anyone believe what anyone else has to say if the thought and utterance could be perfectly random events unrelated to anything else, including each other?

In a truly random world, though, no meaningful communication would be possible. That's because languages themselves are ordered systems (though they do include certain unpredictable features, like irregular verbs, sound changes, etc.) No intelligible language could exist in a world of random developments, thoughts, words, and sounds - and no one but the speaker could understand it if it did!

But even understanding oneself requires orderliness....

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 12:48 PM

Steve Shaw
What U-turn?

The two statements that I quoted from you are directly opposite in meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 12:58 PM

I will get your link...

Warning, I have found that watching Richard Feynman is highly addictive , super clever and enlightening.

I also have a collection of many of his class lectures compiled from cassette tapes from his students.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 01:00 PM

Sorry Lighter, was your last post directed at me?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 01:07 PM

Snail, I don't remember my chemistry all that well, but I think there IS a lot of sense in the way that hydrogen and oxygen combine.

Something about free electrons, and those electron gaps being filled in a stable fashion when two hydrogens combine with one oxygen; and in a less stable fashion when one oxygen and one hydrogen combine.

And the way we can predict new elements from the Periodic Table before we've actually discovered them.

This is stuff that is explained through deductive reasoning, through logic - no? It's a systematic way that things interact, not random.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 01:15 PM

evolution for Lighter
the simple example is 18 minutes in

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 01:16 PM

Warning, I have found that watching Richard Feynman is highly addictive , super clever and enlightening.

I also have a collection of many of his class lectures compiled from cassette tapes from his students.

I have a collection of his lectures on CD but they are a bit challenging, especially when he writes things on a blackboard, or points at something he wrote as part of his explanation: the audio doesn't capture it too well!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 01:33 PM

No they are not. I'd wager that no-one else here would think so either.

The request to "show me some evolution" is illegitimate. That question can be attempted at a single point in time but evolution is not a phenomenon that takes place at a single point in time. The way to demonstrate evolution is to present the evidence for it. I could show you natural selection taking place in bacteria over a couple of days, but natural selection is a mechanism, not evolution. That isn't going to satisfy anyone who doesn't think evolution is true, of course. Asking an impossible, unreasonable and illegitimate question about something you don't want to believe is true is either disingenuous or an argument from ignorance. Evolution is a dead cert that we try to explain by scientific theory. You deny that it is a natural phenomenon then you go on to arbitrarily atomise the concept of a natural phenomenon by regarding individual species as natural phenomena. Well why not go the whole hog and declare that no, not even they are the natural phenomena, rather 'tis the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up their trillions of atoms...or perhaps we can settle on a hierarchy of natural phenomena. I think you're nit-picking, in other words.

Evolution is not just a new idea. It has been going on for most of the life of planet Earth, and would have been going on whether there were sentient minds available to try to explain it or not. You are conflating a non-scientific truth (evolution) with the theory that explains it. Having a theory for it means that we don't fully understand it. Evolution doesn't give a damn whether we understand it or not and just keeps rolling on as a very old non-idea. I nearly said doesn't give a monkey's there, but it does... The theory is the new and better idea you refer to, not evolution itself.

Most theories in inexact sciences such as biology are going to be joint efforts eventually, if not at the beginning. Darwin's big idea has been added to, tweaked and clarified. In his case, strengthened. That doesn't stop it from being a good theory. Darwin did not have modern genetics or biochemistry at his disposal. He would have been delighted that both disciplines have overwhelmingly backed him. That's science for you.

I could hector you on your personal interpretation of the two words "natural" and "phenomenon" in order to glean why you think evolution (not its explanation) isn't a really good fit for both words. But it's my birthday and I need to play Hunt The Corkscrew now.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 01:36 PM

I figure anyone who tries to explain evolution to Pete is probably beyond all hope. Just please let it go...

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 02:24 PM

Joe, what you are talking about is the logic of science derived from the observation of the natural world. Nature does not follow these rules; it hasn't read the textbooks.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 02:38 PM

It would make life simpler to keep these sub-threads separate.

Steve Shaw
No they are not. I'd wager that no-one else here would think so either.

In the first quote you talk of the laws of nature being derived from "that which we see" in a post that goes on to describe the laws as descriptive. In the second you want to remove "that human imposition part of it". Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 02:45 PM

Steve Shaw
The way to demonstrate evolution is to present the evidence for it.

Then would you be so kind as to do so? At the moment your argument seems to consist of "This is true because I, Steve Shaw, say so." You aren't in the classroom now. I have presented my case; kindly present yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 03:07 PM

Snail, it was for Pete.

Still true, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Thanks, Lighter. Your post came directly after mine but didn't seem to rlate to it in anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 03:51 PM

Random can mean "arbitrary." It can also mean "unpredictable."

Evolution at the species level is unpredictable and so "random" in that sense. No one can *accurately* predict, for example, when or even if human beings will evolve into another species; or, if they do, what that species would be like. Contrast that with chemical reactions, which are routinely predictable.

But being unpredictable isn't the same as being arbitrary or causeless. True causelessness is disorder and chaos. (That does make it unpredictable, but despite the overlap the two concepts are distinct.)

Evolution is orderly (not "random") in so far as it exhibits both cause and effect. (In that way it's like everything else above the quantum level.) Unpredictable evolutionary changes don't violate ordinary cause and effect. The class of dinosaurs that evolved into birds did not suddenly and for no good reason lose their teeth, sprout wings, and fly. The slow change resulted from unpredictable but orderly interactions between genetics and environment.

Scientific discussions of evolution reasonably take it for granted that people will not interpret "random" to mean "causeless" - which is what I took Pete to mean.

Since I'm not a professional philosopher or an evolutionary biologist, perhaps I'm quite mistaken about all of this. Readers of this thread will decide for themselves the meaning of "random" in various contexts.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 06:09 PM

Lighter, agree that my position would be based on suspect logic , if yours were too. However if my position is true and we are Gods creation , it is logical to expect that generally we can trust our logic. Not that it can't be mistaken logic of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 06:22 PM

> generally we can trust our logic

We know this through constant exposure to sound deductions and reasonable inferences. It's true whether there's a benevolent Creator or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 06:22 PM

Snail, I have also heard that fixity of species was a common view in the past . This was of course easily shown to be false , and as a result evolution gradually made gains. Creationism has not taught fixity of species for a long time , if ever. Darwin seems to have got his ideas from others before him including creationist writings. Darwin, thought that the variation between species that developed could be extrapolated to posit a complete tree of life encompassing all organisms, as opposed to the biblical teaching , that was observationaly attested , that they reproduced "after their kind ". Now, was it logical to assert that which was not observable ?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 06:30 PM

It is going back a bit, but I feel I neglected a comment by Amos, when we were saying scientific experiments were set up to disprove the null hypothesis. Amos said:

An experiment that DISPROVES the null hypothesis supports some alternative hypothesis, n'est-ce pas?

And that's perfectly true. So why the apparent awkwardness of disproving rather than proving?

It's best considered via an example. Suppose I wanted to prove the statement 'All crows are black'. Basically, it can't be done. I may have examined a million, or one hundred million, crows but I can never be certain that if I go over the next hill I won't come across some white ones. So no matter how many 'agreements' I get, I can't be certain whether the hypothesis is correct or not.

Now suppose the opposite: After examining a bunch of crows I come across a white one. Job done: the hypothesis is disproved, no uncertainty.

And that in short is why experiments are set up to disprove, rather than prove.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 06:34 PM

"Then would you be so kind as to do so? At the moment your argument seems to consist of "This is true because I, Steve Shaw, say so." You aren't in the classroom now. I have presented my case; kindly present yours."

Nonsense. The sense in which I say that evolution is true is the same sense in which I say that there's an apple tree in my garden (there is - come and have a look. If you don't believe me, crunch one of my apples come September and you'll be convinced, though it shouldn't really take even that). Explaining why it's an apple tree and not a cherry tree, how and why it bursts into leaf in May, why the blossom is so beautiful yet functional, how the receptacle swells to surround the true fruit... All that's the science, the human attempt to explain the nature of my apple tree. But the apple tree itself is not science. Science is what people do. No people, no science. The apple tree is there whether there are humans to observe it or not. It doesn't need a classroom dictator to decide whether there's an apple tree in my garden. It doesn't need a classroom dictator (Jeez, I was never that!) to decide whether evolution happens. It just does. Now that's my case - you asked me to present it because you've presented yours. Oddly, I can't seem to see yours anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 06:51 PM

> The apple tree is there whether there are humans to observe it or not.

Yes, but to quote a bumper sticker I saw some years back,

"If a man speaks in the forest and no woman is there to contradict him, is he still wrong?"

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 06:51 PM

Well, DMcG, all crows are black is not a sensible hypothesis to begin with. It's more of an unsupportable assertion, therefore unworthy of scientific consideration, rather like saying that planet Earth is pear-shaped. What is a crow, exactly? Are jays and magpies crows? What if I said that no non-black bird can be a crow, no matter what the other biological attributes of the poor beast strongly suggest? The point I'm trying to make here is that sensible discussions here can't be based on the over-simplistic. We can handle real examples, us intelligent sorts...

When you say that experiments are set up to disprove, your statement is valid only if you add on to the end of it "the null hypothesis." As a matter of fact, I suppose that most working scientists earning their daily crust haven't got much time for the null hypothesis. Hopefully, their training may have provided them with some insight...

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 07:55 PM

Snail says: Joe, what you are talking about is the logic of science derived from the observation of the natural world. Nature does not follow these rules; it hasn't read the textbooks.

I think you're playing semantic games, Snail. Yes, we've already established that the "rules" are descriptive rather than a mandate to be obeyed. We humans are able to observe the patterns in which things function and interact, and those patterns are ordinarily in accord with our logic.

These aren't just random, arbitrary things - these are predictable, interdependent patterns. And the patterns make sense.

It's far easier to says that things follow the laws of science or nature (take your pick), and reasonable people know what that means.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 08:11 PM

I don't understand how anyone can interpret "laws" of nature or science as anything but rules about the way things work, based on observation. I don't know that it's a serious thing to not "get it" or whether it's something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 08:17 PM

English dude dared to propose the multiverse during dangerous times

Steve this may not be as germane as the Feynman link but it is up lifting in its own way.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 09:15 PM

That is fascinating. What England does today, the world does tomorrow... 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Janie
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 10:19 PM

Language does trip us up at times. In logic and mathematics, true or truth, as well as 'value' has one set of meanings based as much as the human mind is capable, on evidence.

Those terms are also used to connote moral values, moral judgements, moral beliefs. The utility of moral beliefs can be documented and studied in terms of their evolutionary value - but that doesn't make them facts.

Both religious and non-religious persons typically have moral values and make belief-based moral judgements regarding behaviors or the worth of individuals in accordance with those moral belief systems. But the meaning and usage is different from how those terms are used in classical logic and mathematics.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 01:39 AM

I think, Steve, you must have indulged on birthday celebrations when you responds to my last post. You understood perfectly well that my use of crows was incidental and the post was about the asymmetry of proving or disproving a statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 02:22 AM

As a matter of fact, I suppose that most working scientists earning their daily crust haven't got much time for the null hypothesis. Hopefully, their training may have provided them with some insight...

Your experience may differ from mine, of course, but mine is that scientists frequently use tools like MATLAB, SPSS and SAS which contain tools to design experiments in such a way that they get the maximum information from the fewest number of experiments.

I don't suppose you would like to hazard a guess what these tools use to decide that, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 05:07 AM

"As a matter of fact, I suppose that most working scientists earning their daily crust haven't got much time for the null hypothesis."

Any scientist doing research will deal with null hypotheses on an almost daily basis. Research questions are broken down into a series of them that can then be tested. Commonly, this might be applying new methodology to test the results of someone else's work, or applying their methodology to your work and comparing the results etc etc

The question of "are all crows black" isn't a null hypothesis, but the question "all crows are black" is. From this we then go on to define the research question, establish the type and the limits of the dataset we would need to test the null and then do the donkey work.

"All Crows are black"

1) Define 'crow'. Crow is the common name for "Corvus corone" of Europe and Asia. All other species are considered irrelevant to this study. Check literature, no-one has tested this hypothesis before. Get big fat grant and start work.

2) Sample size: we need to count as many crows as we can, so we would decide on some way of doing this, geographical location, time, observing a field on certain days etc

3) Count the crows and record if they are black, leucistic or another colour

4) Plot the results.

5) Notice one speckled and one albino crow was seen.

6) Conclude not all crows are black.

7) Null hypothesis disproved. Write it up.

Even if you saw only black crows and decided the null hypothesis was correct then our data would provide a good opportunity to test the null again, perhaps using a bigger sample.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 07:16 AM

Both religious and non-religious persons typically have moral values and make belief-based moral judgements regarding behaviors or the worth of individuals in accordance with those moral belief systems. But the meaning and usage is different from how those terms are used in classical logic and mathematics.

I'd pretty much agree, Janie. There are certainly links, and that is partly why they share terminology, but there is a formality to classical logic that simply can't be applied to most moral questions, if only because the terms are generally ill-defined. Also moral judgements take place based on much more subjective information and models than most branches of science are happy with. So in my view the 'well rounded person' is aware of both, and uses different strategies in different circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 07:24 AM

Joe Offer
It's far easier to says that things follow the laws of science or nature (take your pick), and reasonable people know what that means.

If you say exactly the opposite of what you mean "reasonable people" will know what you mean? I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm playing semantic games to have a problem with that.

If you follow the link in Ed T's post of 14 Jun 16 - 01:09 PM you will see that this is a major topic of philosophical debate. (It's unreadable but it does show the debate is there.)

Saying that nature follows the laws implies that the laws pre-exist and, as I said at the outset, that sounds dangerously close to intelligent design.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 08:19 AM

The late Jacques Derrida here, High Priest of the Deconstructionism that was so popular in the '80s and '90s.

While we Deconstructionists reject the idea that reality is illusory, we also reject the claim that language can say anything permanently meaningful about it.

Allow me quickly to reduce your explanation of a "scientific" method to the patent nonsense that it is.

> Define 'crow'. Crow is the common name for "Corvus corone" of Europe and Asia.

But what is "Corvus corone"? Unless you explain precisely what this means, your statement is a tautology at best. But don't try: if the word "bird" appears in your explanation (or any other word for that matter), we are left to puzzle over its meaning until it is further explained. And so forth. One may, moreover, quite as successfully include blackness in the very definition of "crow." Those who would object have merely been misled by "science," which is has no more validity than any other invalid language-reliant belief system.   

Many years from now, assuming we are finally agreed upon the meaning of *all* the words you've used, we can move to point two: "All other species are considered irrelevant to this study." Why is this? So as to stack the deck in favor of positivistic science, of course. Isn't the distinction between "C. corone" and all other so-called species quite arbitrary? Would Eskimos, who are reputed routinely to distinguish many forms of what call "snow," concur that the imagined distinctions among crows are significantly meaningful?

Is all "snow" "white"? No, say you, there's slush, which is gray. Ah, but slush is not snow, which is white by definition. Slush used to be snow, but now it's something else entirely, something called, by the odd concatenation of sounds "slush," for unexamined reasons none of us here are likely to know or care about when we say "slush."

You say a whale is a "mammal." Captain Ahab and countless others throughout history say it is a "fish." Perhaps it partakes of both, or of neither, depending on one's criteria. Who is to say - unless it is the societal group in power?

Deconstructionism holds that all meaning - which is a function of the mind - is radically unstable, ever elusive, and permanently removed from external reality. Deconstructionist critics gain tenure explaining why things like "Hamlet" can be assigned no particular meaning at all. All "knowledge" expressed in words is merely the "endless play of [linguistic] signs."

Read my works if you think I'm kidding. If you dare think you can understand them.

Jacques Derrida, signing off.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 09:00 AM

Thank you Steve Shaw for your comparison of evolution with your apple tree. It demonstrates my point admirably. Your apple tree can be seen, touched, heard, smelt and tasted. None of these is true of evolution. It is perfectly legitimate to say "Show me your apple tree" (in fact you have already invited me to come and see it) but it is not legitimate to say "Show me some evolution". The two things couldn't be more different.

Evolution is not just a new idea. It has been going on for most of the life of planet Earth, and would have been going on whether there were sentient minds available to try to explain it or not.
You could say the same of natural selection but you seem happy to accept that that is a theory and cannot be described as true.

It doesn't need a classroom dictator (Jeez, I was never that!) to decide whether evolution happens. It just does. Now that's my case
Yep. Steve Shaw says so.

Oddly, I can't seem to see yours anywhere.
You do have a bit of a track record of not seeing things I've said if they don't suit you like your denial to Pete that I had said "Show me some evolution". Try looking at my post of 15 Jun 16 - 12:08 PM.

It seems I was wrong to say that no individual was responsible for coming up with evolution, at least according to Darwin who claims it for himself.
From the introduction to On The Origin Of Species -

Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no
doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of
which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently
entertained, and which I formerly entertained--namely, that each species
has been independently created--is erroneous. I am fully convinced that
species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called
the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally
extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of
any one species are the descendants of that species.

Not a natural phenomenon but something arrived at after "deliberate study and dispassionate judgment".

Happy Birthday for yesterday by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 09:03 AM

"As a matter of fact, I suppose that most working scientists earning their daily crust haven't got much time for the null hypothesis. Hopefully, their training may have provided them with some insight..."

So why do you think I added that last bit, DMcG and Stu? When you drive your car, are you running over all that stuff in your head about matching revs and coordinating accelerator and clutch that you were told when you were learning to drive every time you change gear? Or have you not got much time for it?

By the way, a quick way of losing friends on a forum is to make unsupportable accusations that someone is posting under the influence of alcohol.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 09:12 AM

"The question of 'are all crows black' isn't a null hypothesis, but the question 'all crows are black' is. "

Not only is that not a null hypothesis, it isn't even a question. It could well be a hypothesis. It sounds more like an unsupported assertion coming from a standpoint of ignorance. A bit like my saying that all butterflies are red admirals. As someone who knows a bit about crows, I'd be asking "What makes you think that?" There would inevitably be an inadequate answer to that and the line of enquiry would cease forthwith as not being worth pursuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 09:17 AM

Sorry you took the reference to your birthday that way, Steve. It really followed on from an earlier post by you on the same theme.in a similar style. If it has offended you, I apologise.

I did notice the part you have highlighted. I find scientists use their skill and experience to decide *which* null hypotheses to explore, not whether to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 09:29 AM

I also regret mentioning those damned crows as it seems to have led lots of people down a side street. I doubt if anyone cares but I picked that as a result of a paper I read decades ago about the difference between the statement "all crows are black" and the logically equivalent all non-black things are not-crows....

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 10:23 AM

No offence taken. On another forum I once saw a serious escalation of nastiness when someone accused someone else of posting pissed!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 11:48 AM

"I am a scientist and I know what constitutes proof. But the reason I call myself by my childhood name is to remind myself that a scientist must also be absolutely like a child. If he sees a thing, he must say that he sees it, whether it was what he thought he was going to see or not. See first, think later, then test. But always see first. Otherwise you will only see what you were expecting. Most scientists forget that." 
― Douglas Adams

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 01:00 PM

"As someone who knows a bit about crows, I'd be asking "What makes you think that?"

It's a simple example with a grammatical error, meant to illustrate a point. Your question, whilst interesting, would be addressed in the introduction to the paper, where we would be outlining the relevance of our research. But then you know that.


"But what is "Corvus corone"? Unless you explain precisely what this means, your statement is a tautology at best."

Of course it's not a tautology. By using the binomial a scientist knows what they are looking at; many of these things have common names. I refer you to the type specimen (where ever that is).

" Isn't the distinction between "C. corone" and all other so-called species quite arbitrary?"

Ah, now this is more interesting. The distinction between species isn't arbitrary at all because we name a particular example of an organism as a holotype and that represents their species. We list the characters and traits of these species so we can compare with other organisms to see if they share traits/DNA etc etc

But whilst not arbitrary, the concept of a 'species' is not universally accepted; in fact, it's widely regarded as being inadequate in many respects because it fixes the characters of an organism too rigidly, not allowing for intraspecific variation, ontogeny and other factors that cause the wide variety of morphotypes that make up a population of that species.

All that said, the use of species isn't going away any time soon; when identifying organisms and comparing them for the purposes of understanding their ecology and evolution species are still essential. In my experience palaeontologists (for whom this is a major issue) often talk in terms of morphotypes and this seems to make sense as it allows for the natural variation present within any given population of organisms.

Good stuff, I will talk more about this with my supervisors.