Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Au contraire, you can't disprove it, so it's not a valid scientific theory.
    You inserted "scientific," though. I was quite careful with my wording.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    You inserted "scientific," though. I was quite careful with my wording.
    OK, as long as you agree that it isn't science, or even close, then I don't really care either way.
    The fact that evolution is a scientific theory makes it more scientifically valid, and to be quite honest that's the only type of valid that I see as particulary important in the circumstances.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    OK, as long as you agree that it isn't science, or even close, then I don't really care either way.
    LOL, as if my opinion on something could ruin your day...

    The fact that evolution is a scientific theory makes it more scientifically valid, and to be quite honest that's the only type of valid that I see as particulary important in the circumstances.
    Scientific validity doesn't concern me nearly as much as legal validity.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    LOL, as if my opinion on something could ruin your day...
    :O
    Although actually ignorance regarding evolution/creationism(AKA intelligent design) irritates me much more than it really should.

    Scientific validity doesn't concern me nearly as much as legal validity.
    Sorry, please explain what you mean by 'legal validity'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Sorry, please explain what you mean by 'legal validity'.
    The standards of validity required of a theory for it to be admissible as evidence in court.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The standards of validity required of a theory for it to be admissible as evidence in court.
    Why on earth would either of the theories end up in the courtroom?
    The only situation I can think of would be about which to teach in the classroom, therefore evolution's higher scientific validity surely puts it miles ahead creationism.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Worth reminding people there's a difference between 'Evolution' which is undeniable and 'Darwin's theory of Evolution' which although convincing, remains a theory?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Why on earth would either of the theories end up in the courtroom?
    The only situation I can think of would be about which to teach in the classroom, therefore evolution's higher scientific validity surely puts it miles ahead creationism.
    No reason, it's just the standard that I'm used to, so it is the one that I judge validity by.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    No reason, it's just the standard that I'm used to, so it is the one that I judge validity by.
    Oh I get you now
    But yeh, ArthurOliver has a good point, so evolution would stand up in court, darwin might, creationism would not.

    I would argue that scientific validity is more relevant in this case, but hey.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Oh I get you now
    But yeh, ArthurOliver has a good point, so evolution would stand up in court, darwin might, creationism would not.
    Actually, none of the three would stand up in US court, because none can be falsified.

    I would argue that scientific validity is more relevant in this case, but hey.
    Well, I prefer courtroom validity because it requires much more rigorous attempts to falsify.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, none of the three would stand up in US court, because none can be falsified.
    Evolution literally means:
    The change in frequency of alleles in a gene pool over time.

    This has been documented and is indisputable fact.

    Well, I prefer courtroom validity because it requires much more rigorous attempts to falsify.
    I prefer mathematical proof, but it ain't gonna happen, and isn't required to happen for the progress of science, which is what I'm ultimately concerned with.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Evolution literally means:
    The change in frequency of alleles in a gene pool over time.

    This has been documented and is indisputable fact.
    Yeah, I took biology, I'm well aware.

    I prefer mathematical proof, but it ain't gonna happen, and isn't required to happen for the progress of science, which is what I'm ultimately concerned with.
    We all have our priorities.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, I took biology, I'm well aware.
    You don't think "The change in frequency of alleles in a gene pool over time" would stand up in court? Unlike creationism it has proof, so I don't think that it not being falsifiable is applicable here...

    We all have our priorities.
    Meh, in the future hopefully all psychology will be reduced to biology, which will be reduced to chemistry, which will be reduced to physics, which will be reduced to mathematics. Then I'll be happy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    You don't think "The change in frequency of alleles in a gene pool over time" would stand up in court? Unlike creationism it has proof, so I don't think that it not being falsifiable is applicable here...
    I apologize, I should have been more specific, it wouldn't be done in solely by falsifiability (as the other two would be), but because it would be rife with statistical inferences, which is fine if the inferences are suitable to the application of the theory, but not as proof of the theory in itself.

    Meh, in the future hopefully all psychology will be reduced to biology, which will be reduced to chemistry, which will be reduced to physics, which will be reduced to mathematics. Then I'll be happy.
    Oh, don't tell me you're one of those "mathematics is the language of the universe"-people...
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I apologize, I should have been more specific, it wouldn't be done in solely by falsifiability (as the other two would be), but because it would be rife with statistical inferences, which is fine if the inferences are suitable to the application of the theory, but not as proof of the theory in itself.
    OK. Since I don't know what the inferences are I'll just believe you since you seem to know what you're talking about.

    Oh, don't tell me you're one of those "mathematics is the language of the universe"-people...
    What can I say, reductionism is awesome.
    I never expect that to actually happen though, so I'll stick with maths and theoretical physics rather than trying to work out the mathematics of biology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    OK. Since I don't know what the inferences are I'll just believe you since you seem to know what you're talking about.
    Well, I'll admit that I'm a bit more pessimistic about the courts than they may deserve, but still let's just be happy that no one is questioning it (as they are with DNA typing and fingerprinting).


    What can I say, reductionism is awesome.
    I never expect that to actually happen though, so I'll stick with maths and theoretical physics rather than trying to work out the mathematics of biology.
    Wise decision.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What exactly is this "legal standard of proof" you are talking about, P_S? In a civil court it's based on the balance of the probabilities; in a criminal court, "beyond reasonable doubt"- a stronger balance of probability. In neither case is there often [nor can there be] any peer reviews or cross checking of hypotheses or- as people found out with supposedly almost infallible tests for explosives in IRA cases- tests of claims for the reliability of the evidence.
    This kind of "proof" is actually at a much lower level that either philosophical, scientific or mathematical concepts of proof, so, if you accept this standard the whole theory of evolution, which is the agglomeration of evidence that countless species- every species for which there is sufficient evidence and which has been examined- have evolved and are evolving still, is at a much higher level of proof than that which you require.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by psychic_satori)



    Oh, don't tell me you're one of those "mathematics is the language of the universe"-people...
    ...but ain't it the truth, regardless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    You inserted "scientific," though. I was quite careful with my wording.
    If you admit it isnt scientific you are also admitting it has no place in any science lesson. I couldnt give a toss what loonies want to teach outside the class room, as long as it isnt taught as science its fine with me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If anybody hasn't read them, here are the articles. I also suggest reading Darwins watch by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen.
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: doc A sceptic.doc (31.0 KB, 68 views)
  2. File Type: doc SCIENCE only functions with the presumption of honesty.doc (27.0 KB, 103 views)
 
 
 

1,616

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.