Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Like I said: would be just as delusional.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
There's a huge difference between understanding basic statistics and having professional statisticians on board to being able to say, without a doubt, that you have proven causation.
Edit:
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
On the other hand, if you would just say "The correlation is strong enough to at least support the idea at this time," then I would reply, "Cool." At that point we could at least move the conversation to the policies and not the science.
[+]
Actually, no, that's not how science works 99.9% of the time. A lot of sciences have the ability to perform real tests with real controls designed to give them the right to imply causation. Other sciences don't throw around the word "proof" all willy nilly and call correlation what it actually is.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Evolution isn't proven.
I can prove evolution easily. I cannot prove which particular mechanism occurred.
Again don't try comparing climate change to evolution. It's a horrific idea. One is a fundamental principle which backbones one of the three basic sciences and all subsequent sub-fields.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Gravity isn't proven.
Are you saying that climate science can't perform these tests? Because that's ridiculous.
I thought my meaning was rather clear. No one can claim it's 100% proven. To say otherwise is not very scientific. It's highly likely because massive evidence exists to support it. There's a distinct difference between the casual use of the word and its scientific meaning.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Wrong. The mechanisms which drive evolution are ambiguous.
I can prove evolution easily. I cannot prove which particular mechanism occurred.
Again don't try comparing climate change to evolution. It's a horrific idea. One is a fundamental principle which backbones one of the three basic sciences and all subsequent sub-fields.
I can prove evolution easily. I cannot prove which particular mechanism occurred.
Again don't try comparing climate change to evolution. It's a horrific idea. One is a fundamental principle which backbones one of the three basic sciences and all subsequent sub-fields.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
I thought my meaning was rather clear. No one can claim it's 100% proven. To say otherwise is not very scientific. It's highly likely because massive evidence exists to support it.
I thought my previous post was rather clear. You can prove evolution occurs 100%. You cannot prove which mechanism occurs. There is a BIG difference.
That's definitely not phrasing I would ever use so casually. It's a glowing invitation to be grilled by a nitpicky audience member or reviewer.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
That's definitely not phrasing I would ever use so casually. It's a glowing invitation to be grilled by a nitpicky audience member or reviewer.
Comparing evolution to man-made climate change is not something I would ever do so casually. It's a glowing invitation to be grilled by a nitpicky academic.
You're just antagonizing me. I've explained myself at least three times. I wasn't making a direct comparison in the way you're claiming I am.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
I thought my meaning was rather clear. No one can claim it's 100% proven. To say otherwise is not very scientific.
So, saying "100% proven" isn't very scientific. But yet you get mad when I say you don't have proof. But then you can't supply me with proof, so you say it's ridiculous that your scientists wouldn't be able to get proof. You know, the very proof that I'm not able to find anywhere.
Throw me a bone here then. Does Pleebo agree that man-made climate change isn't scientifically (i.e. statistically) proven or not? He's contradicting himself.
And if he says it is, I'd better see actual proof instead of implied proof.
And if he says it is, I'd better see actual proof instead of implied proof.
All you seem to say is that the science could be wrong. That's not criticism. It's just being contrary. I know I've linked several publications within these threads for anyone to chew on. I don't know what "proof" you're looking for that the horde of professional scientists who actually study this thing haven't already accepted.
Okay, so you don't have proof but you won't actually come out and say it. You have "scientists agree", which could actually mean they favor the correlation, which goes back to my original point. Lovely.
[+]
[+]
Kinda sound like you want to be spoon fed. The basic literature is freely available (mostly) and I've pretty sure I told you specifically where you could start. It seem like a rather arduous task for me to go around the literature fetching information and asking "Is this what you wanted?" so unless there's something in particular you'd like to address then, yeah, I'm going to leave it at that.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Newton's law of Universal Gravitation says hello!
Actually, Newton demonstrated gravity but gave no proof, or even a real idea, what or why it is. If you want to get technical, the mechanics of gravity weren't really hammered out until around the 1940's when they could actually observably test Einstein's theory of special relativity. Even to this day, the mechanics of gravity aren't perfectly understood in the real of the subatomic.
It's far more concise than AGC, I'll give you that, but it's far from a 500 year old proven theory.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Kinda sound like you want to be spoon fed. The basic literature is freely available (mostly) and I've pretty sure I told you specifically where you could start. It seem like a rather arduous task for me to go around the literature fetching information and asking "Is this what you wanted?" so unless there's something in particular you'd like to address then, yeah, I'm going to leave it at that.
Got anything with ANOVA tables?
Odin.Jassik said: »
Actually, Newton demonstrated gravity but gave no proof, or even a real idea, what or why it is. If you want to get technical, the mechanics of gravity weren't really hammered out until around the 1940's when they could actually observably test Einstein's theory of special relativity. Even to this day, the mechanics of gravity aren't perfectly understood in the real of the subatomic.
It's far more concise than AGC, I'll give you that, but it's far from a 500 year old proven theory.
It's far more concise than AGC, I'll give you that, but it's far from a 500 year old proven theory.
That's very similar to evolution. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 demonstrated evolution via the finches and postulated several mechanisms that drive evolution. One of which was found to not always be true, survival of the fittest.
The reason why evolution became able to be proved is because the definition was revised some years ago to the following:
Quote:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Darwin's definition was about changes in inherited traits that were always beneficial. Darwin didn't understand that evolution could/would select bad traits or play genetic roulette. Darwin really thought evolution was about selecting the best of the best and survival of the fittest. This is a huge misconception people have to this day.
The mechanics which drive evolution, in a particular instance, will never fully be understood because they don't always work together and sometimes they oppose each other e.g. altruism vs natural selection. However, evolution(the new definition) can easily be proven. One way is via reverse transcription and retroviruses.
EDIT: Didn't we have this exact same discussion a few threads back?
I didn't, but I'm no buff on biology. Every theory goes through revision as new information becomes available, that's the way science works.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Kinda sound like you want to be spoon fed. The basic literature is freely available (mostly) and I've pretty sure I told you specifically where you could start. It seem like a rather arduous task for me to go around the literature fetching information and asking "Is this what you wanted?" so unless there's something in particular you'd like to address then, yeah, I'm going to leave it at that.
Got anything with ANOVA tables?
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Actually, Newton demonstrated gravity but gave no proof, or even a real idea, what or why it is. If you want to get technical, the mechanics of gravity weren't really hammered out until around the 1940's when they could actually observably test Einstein's theory of special relativity. Even to this day, the mechanics of gravity aren't perfectly understood in the real of the subatomic.
It's far more concise than AGC, I'll give you that, but it's far from a 500 year old proven theory.
It's far more concise than AGC, I'll give you that, but it's far from a 500 year old proven theory.
That's very similar to evolution. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 demonstrated evolution via the finches and postulated several mechanisms that drive evolution. One of which was found to not always be true, survival of the fittest.
The reason why evolution became able to be proved is because the definition was revised some years ago to the following:
Quote:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Darwin's definition was about changes in inherited traits that were always beneficial. Darwin didn't understand that evolution could/would select bad traits or play genetic roulette. Darwin really thought evolution was about selecting the best of the best and survival of the fittest. This is a huge misconception people have to this day.
The mechanics which drive evolution, in a particular instance, will never fully be understood because they don't always work together and sometimes they oppose each other e.g. altruism vs natural selection. However, evolution(the new definition) can easily be proven. One way is via reverse transcription and retroviruses.
EDIT: Didn't we have this exact same discussion a few threads back?
You're actually wrong, Survival of the Fittest still applies, as survival of the "Fittest" doesn't mean that which is the strongest, but that which fits into it's niche or environment. There's never been a case where an organism that doesn't fit into it's niche/environment survives, especially on a geologically appreciable scale.
Your semantic deconstruction is based on papers that were published when Darwin's Origin of Species went public domain and was rewritten as a pro-creationist document in surreptitious ways. Darwin always held that fittest meant "That which fits the environment."
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Kinda sound like you want to be spoon fed. The basic literature is freely available (mostly) and I've pretty sure I told you specifically where you could start. It seem like a rather arduous task for me to go around the literature fetching information and asking "Is this what you wanted?" so unless there's something in particular you'd like to address then, yeah, I'm going to leave it at that.
Got anything with ANOVA tables?
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Actually, Newton demonstrated gravity but gave no proof, or even a real idea, what or why it is. If you want to get technical, the mechanics of gravity weren't really hammered out until around the 1940's when they could actually observably test Einstein's theory of special relativity. Even to this day, the mechanics of gravity aren't perfectly understood in the real of the subatomic.
It's far more concise than AGC, I'll give you that, but it's far from a 500 year old proven theory.
It's far more concise than AGC, I'll give you that, but it's far from a 500 year old proven theory.
That's very similar to evolution. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 demonstrated evolution via the finches and postulated several mechanisms that drive evolution. One of which was found to not always be true, survival of the fittest.
The reason why evolution became able to be proved is because the definition was revised some years ago to the following:
Quote:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Darwin's definition was about changes in inherited traits that were always beneficial. Darwin didn't understand that evolution could/would select bad traits or play genetic roulette. Darwin really thought evolution was about selecting the best of the best and survival of the fittest. This is a huge misconception people have to this day.
The mechanics which drive evolution, in a particular instance, will never fully be understood because they don't always work together and sometimes they oppose each other e.g. altruism vs natural selection. However, evolution(the new definition) can easily be proven. One way is via reverse transcription and retroviruses.
EDIT: Didn't we have this exact same discussion a few threads back?
When the Evolution definition is rewrote to fit perfectly with genetics, then yea.. Makes it a lot easier to prove..
Genetics
The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.
[+]
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.