No Big Bang - Page 5 - Writers Forum

Hodge · 06-25-2007, 01:00 AM

A hypothesis is tested extensively, and once it has been established, it becomes a scientific theory. The geocentric solar system model was created WAY before the scientific method even existed, so it was not a scientific theory. Ptolemy's model was arbitrarily chosen over Aristarchus', despite them both being firmly grounded in the mathematics and observations of their day (it just fell in line with the common belief of the time that the earth was the center of the universe).

Silly lin. You should know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis when you say really stupid and bold things like "real science, not social science." Hell, you should really know that science is a method, and that the social sciences use the same methods as the natural sciences, the only difference between the two divisions being what the method is applied to.

Next time just don't post anything unless you've fact-checked it beforehand.

Hodge · 06-25-2007, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

That concept is itself teleological. The idea that "evolution" is an entity with a goal or drive is begging the entire question. In fact, what you end up with is something pretty damn indistinquisable from intelligent design. In fact, you'd have to say that something that directs life towards a destination is pretty much indistinquisable from God.

Not really... It's "directed" in the same way that a marble is directed through the hole in the bottom of a funnel.

Beardedtroll · 06-25-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

That concept is itself teleological. The idea that "evolution" is an entity with a goal or drive is begging the entire question. In fact, what you end up with is something pretty damn indistinquisable from intelligent design. In fact, you'd have to say that something that directs life towards a destination is pretty much indistinquisable from God.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. With "directed process" I didn't mean that it is being directed by someone, only that the process is not random, but has a given direction. By the theory, this direction comed from the current environment and is not imposed by any outside agent. It's a directed process in the way the growth of a crystal is a directed process.

lin · 06-25-2007, 01:27 AM

Hodgepodge, you did just what I advised against...spouted off your teen glib without checking with a grownup.

Your word play is meaningless.
Ask yourself this question: do theories never change or get supplanted or disproven?

Now, stop the fuck by the science prof and ask him about "theory" being the same as "fact". Go ahead, those real real science guys don't bite.

A funnel is designed to channel things down it. Dropping a marble into it activates a plan with a goal. Examine the phrase "is directed by". Ya putz.

Who said "someone"? You talk about a process directing things or with a direction, what the hell are you talking about?

The whole "unfolding" versus "outside agent" thing is pointless to argue. You have an environment with direction, you have an agenda.

You guys are out of your depth in this stuff.

Try this one: can there be design that does not evince intelligence?

Beardedtroll · 06-25-2007, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

A hypothesis is tested extensively, and once it has been established, it becomes a scientific theory.

Not quite. A hypothesis is a single, falsifyable statement about the world. "When dropped, an apple falls to the ground." A theory is a model of how the world works. Both hypothesis and theories can be false. Sometimes hypothesis and experiments give rise to theories, and sometimes theories give rise to hypothesis: "If light moves through æther, it should behave thus."

Both hypothesis and theories can be generally accepted or generally scoffed at. The theory of æther was once generally accepted, but was shown to be false, and Lamarckian evolution was long a theory competing with that of Darwinian evolution.

Quote:

Silly lin. You should know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis when you say really stupid and bold things like "real science, not social science." Hell, you should really know that science is a method, and that the social sciences use the same methods as the natural sciences, the only difference between the two divisions being what the method is applied to.

However, the scientific method is more applicable to some fields of knowledge than to others. Fields that deal with humans and human interactions are less ameable to the scientific mehtod than fields that deal with "the cold, hard reality" because practical and ethical constraints limits the experiments that can be performed to a much greater deal: You can't test macro-economic theories in the laboratory, and you can't have the fall of the Roman empire re-created and verified by another lab.

To call them "social sciences" is in many ways a misnomer, as they're really scholastic fields rather than sciences.

Beardedtroll · 06-25-2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

The whole "unfolding" versus "outside agent" thing is pointless to argue. You have an environment with direction, you have an agenda.

No, "agenda" requires will. A river is "an environment with direction" -- you wouldn't claim that a river has an agenda, would you?

Quote:

Try this one: can there be design that does not evince intelligence?

No, but I fail to see the relevance of your question to the discussion. Nobody has talked about "design by evolution."

lin · 06-25-2007, 01:53 AM

No a river doesn't have a direction. Nor does it direct anything.

lin · 06-25-2007, 01:55 AM

Nor is a river a closed system. You can't explain why the river is there without bringing the sun into the question.

There is pretty much no such thing as a closed system in the natural world.

Beardedtroll · 06-25-2007, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

No a river doesn't have a direction. Nor does it direct anything.

Okay: we're talking past each other. I don't think there's any point in further debate.

lin · 06-25-2007, 02:16 AM

Probably not. You are focusing on systems that work interdependently with other systems, yet trying to say they are self-contained.

Hodgiekins is setting up mechanisms like funnels then trying to claim there is no design or direction.

A BIG clue, look into the origins of the word "evolution". What it describes is not generatation from nothing, but an unfolding of things concealed within.

A tree grows from a seed, but the seed is a repository of a previous tree. Chicken, egg.

You are both trying to say that there is no design or agency involved in a tree or chicken being there. Because it grew up from a seed or egg.

Hodge · 06-25-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Ask yourself this question: do theories never change or get supplanted or disproven?

Of course theories change. Evolution is a fact, but the mechanics of it are still under study. Gravity is a fact, but the mechanics of it are still under study. Newton's physical theories are fact, it's just that Einstein's theory is more encompassing. Plate tectonics is fact, but we're still trying to understand the interactions that take place.

I can't think of a single scientific theory (that is a theory that falls under the actual definity of a scientific theory and not just a statement in science erroneously called a theory) that has ever been proven wrong. Elements within theories have been, but the theories themselves have not.

Quote:

A funnel is designed to channel things down it. Dropping a marble into it activates a plan with a goal. Examine the phrase "is directed by". Ya putz.

A funnel is simply an inverted incline with a hole at the bottom. That doesn't need to be created by anyone. The marble falls through the hole all on its own thanks to the environment it exists in, just an organism evolves in a certain direction thanks to the environment it exists in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beardedtroll

Not quite. A hypothesis is a single, falsifyable statement about the world. "When dropped, an apple falls to the ground." A theory is a model of how the world works. Both hypothesis and theories can be false. Sometimes hypothesis and experiments give rise to theories, and sometimes theories give rise to hypothesis: "If light moves through æther, it should behave thus."

Both hypothesis and theories can be generally accepted or generally scoffed at. The theory of æther was once generally accepted, but was shown to be false, and Lamarckian evolution was long a theory competing with that of Darwinian evolution.

I was simplifying, but yes. My point was that a scientific theory isn't just a statement that has yet to be proven, it's an accepted explanation with a large body of evidence that hasn't been proven wrong. The luminious aether wasn't really a theory, it was an explanation within a theory that didn't really have any evidence to back it up; until Einstein came along and showed how light really traveled, the aether was just there to fill in a gap. I happen to think filling in gaps like that is irresponsible, but I'm sure it still happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beardedtroll

However, the scientific method is more applicable to some fields of knowledge than to others. Fields that deal with humans and human interactions are less ameable to the scientific mehtod than fields that deal with "the cold, hard reality" because practical and ethical constraints limits the experiments that can be performed to a much greater deal: You can't test macro-economic theories in the laboratory, and you can't have the fall of the Roman empire re-created and verified by another lab.

To call them "social sciences" is in many ways a misnomer, as they're really scholastic fields rather than sciences.

They're sciences. Young science, certainly (remember -- psychology was synonymous with "philosophy" until Freud came along, even though he wasn't much of a scientist himself). Science isn't dependent upon whether or not you can test something in a lab, it's dependent on the methodology used to arrive at conclusions. Unfortunately, because of what you said -- practical and ethical constraints -- there are few conclusions within the social sciences (except maybe economics). Ideas have to be tested through statistics, case studies, and experiments performed before (and usually the ones that resulted in) ethical guidelines were established. But that doesn't change the nature of the inquiry.

nineteen · 07-24-2007, 04:09 PM

BANG!

nineteen · 07-24-2007, 04:10 PM

ok, debate over, there was the big bing.

get it... you do, don't you. lolerskates

nineteen · 07-24-2007, 04:10 PM

off topic: the new forum skin looks nice.