"Peer Reviewed" Research

[Immortal4life]

Here's the thing.

 

In science you can never prove anything for 100% sure. You can support a theory, but you can't prove.

 

You can however, disprove, or falsify something beyond any doubt.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Immortal4life

[goldisheavy]

It works both ways. A single specimen is a single piece of data that may support or not support a theory. The theory is much more valuable and powerful than any single fact (ie piece of evidence).

 

What does this mean? Is the theory so valuable that it doesn't really need evidence, or does it mean that as long as we have one piece of evidence, it's more than enough? It seems you're sort of elevating the value of the theory over the value of the evidence and I am not sure what the implications are.

 

Also, what is the value of the evolution theory to you personally, in your own words?

Edited May 24, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Here's the thing.

 

In science you can never prove anything for 100% sure. You can support a theory, but you can't prove.

 

I agree.

 

You can however, disprove, or falsify something beyond any doubt.

 

No you can't. Doubts always remain. Scientific theories must be falsifiable but the falsification occurs through a process of consensus of the scientific peers. The falsification is not in some way magical. So it doesn't have some strangely absolute powers. In other words, there is no asymmetry here between proving and falsifying. Both proving and falsifying are non-absolute.

Edited May 24, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

A theory is a theory. That is all. It is a person's opinion of what the facts are. Theories are a dime a dozen. Facts are much more expensive. Theories can be modified forever. A tree is a tree from the moment of its birth until the day of its death. That cannot be changed.

 

That is why I insist that evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter to me in the least if some god created the process or if the process is an element of Tzujan (self-naturalness). The why doesn't matter (of those matters we have no control of), the what is the important thing.

 

Evidence can be used to prove or disprove a theory. But the evidence is a fact - it stands on its own. We just have to be careful what we call this evidence and how we use it and for what purpose we are using it.

[ralis]

A theory is a theory. That is all. It is a person's opinion of what the facts are. Theories are a dime a dozen. Facts are much more expensive. Theories can be modified forever. A tree is a tree from the moment of its birth until the day of its death. That cannot be changed.

 

That is why I insist that evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter to me in the least if some god created the process or if the process is an element of Tzujan (self-naturalness). The why doesn't matter (of those matters we have no control of), the what is the important thing.

 

Evidence can be used to prove or disprove a theory. But the evidence is a fact - it stands on its own. We just have to be careful what we call this evidence and how we use it and for what purpose we are using it.

 

 

This is well worth reading.

 

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[Marblehead]

This is well worth reading.

 

 

Fair enough. But here is what gives me support when saying that evolution is a fact:

 

Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

 

So you go ahead and continue calling evolution a theory and I will continue calling it a fact. Hehehe.

 

Add edit:

 

And yes hypothises are all over the place. They cost only a penny for ten dozen and sometimes they are even free.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Marblehead

[Immortal4life]

Often when a specific peice of evidence is said to support a particual theory, what really happened was that the piece of evidence failed to falsify the particular theory it allegedly concerns.

 

Often scientists say a theory is supported, because it hasn't been able to have been falsified or disproven.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Often when a specific peice of evidence is said to support a particual theory, what really happened was that the piece of evidence failed to falsify the particular theory it allegedly concerns.

 

Often scientists say a theory is supported, because it hasn't been able to have been falsified or disproven.

 

 

That is a very weak argument and fails to consider how scientific methodology works. By the above statement, almost any body of evidence could be randomly selected and included, if said evidence did not falsify a specific theory. That is really stretching it!

 

Before you attempt to argue what you don't understand, why not do a little reading.

[goldisheavy]

Often when a specific peice of evidence is said to support a particual theory, what really happened was that the piece of evidence failed to falsify the particular theory it allegedly concerns.

 

Often scientists say a theory is supported, because it hasn't been able to have been falsified or disproven.

 

I agree. Sometimes or maybe often the scientists use the "preponderance of evidence" standard (used in civil cases) of judgement rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (used in criminal cases) (to borrow the terms from the law practice in USA). The "preponderance of evidence" is definitely a much weaker standard of the two.

 

Still, preponderance of evidence while a weaker standard is not nothing. So the scientists are not exactly idiots when they use that standard. Often preponderance of evidence is all you have and instead of simply being modest and saying "we just don't know" they go ahead and come up with 2-5 working theories. Of those 1 theory will be a pet favorite. It's just natural. Also, it's probably a healthy thing to do to keep science moving forward, to keep the scientists motivated and happy. But yes, it's not a perfect process.

Edited May 24, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Often when a specific peice of evidence is said to support a particual theory, what really happened was that the piece of evidence failed to falsify the particular theory it allegedly concerns.

 

Often scientists say a theory is supported, because it hasn't been able to have been falsified or disproven.

 

I cannot, in honesty, argue against this. Remember, the earth was flat for a bunch of thousands of years. Only recently has it become round (more or less).

[goldisheavy]

I cannot, in honesty, argue against this. Remember, the earth was flat for a bunch of thousands of years. Only recently has it become round (more or less).

 

I'm not buying it. I think many ancient people thought the Earth was round. I think the flat earth was a local affliction in some cultures, but not a universal one.

Edited May 24, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

I'm not buying it. I think many ancient people thought the Earth was round. I think the flat earth was a local affliction in some cultures, but not a universal one.

 

You are probably right. But no, I'm not going to research it just to prove who is right. Doesn't matter. Ah!, beliefs! Sometimes they are so different from the physical facts. But then, when we can't see or understand the physical facts we make up our own stories.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Marblehead

[Immortal4life]

But no, I'm not going to research it just to prove who is right.

 

 

I bet if I wrote it you would spend a long time researching it, trying to find any source which might disagree with me.

 

lol jk

[Marblehead]

I bet if I wrote it you would spend a long time researching it, trying to find any source which might disagree with me.

 

lol jk

 

Hehehe. Nope. I wouldn't spend the time for you either.

 

Hehehe. You make it easy for me to find things to disagree with you about.

 

(Sorry. Just getting even. Ha!)

[goldisheavy]

You are probably right. But no, I'm not going to research it just to prove who is right. Doesn't matter. Ah!, beliefs! Sometimes they are so different from the physical facts. But then, when we can't see or understand the physical facts we make up our own stories.

 

Who doesn't love a good story? I would say the very purpose of life is to weave stories.

[Marblehead]

Who doesn't love a good story? I would say the very purpose of life is to weave stories.

 

Seems that way sometimes, doesn't it?

 

Seems too that human nature needs answers for all its questions. We just aren't satisfied with "I don't know." So we make up our stories and pretend that we know.

 

What amazes me is that more often than not the person who made up the story tells the story so often that they begin thinking that their story is really the true answer to the question and they stop looking for the real answer.

 

Hehehe. We got way off topic in this thread, didn't we?

Edited May 24, 2011 by Marblehead

[goldisheavy]

Seems that way sometimes, doesn't it?

 

Seems too that human nature needs answers for all its questions. We just aren't satisfied with "I don't know." So we make up our stories and pretend that we know.

 

What amazes me is that more often than not the person who made up the story tells the story so often that they begin thinking that their story is really the true answer to the question and they stop looking for the real answer.

 

This assumes the real answer exists.

 

Hehehe. We got way off topic in this thread, didn't we?

 

I don't pay attention to that. When I reply I only worry about the post I am replying to. I care not about the thread per se.

[steve]

What does this mean? Is the theory so valuable that it doesn't really need evidence, or does it mean that as long as we have one piece of evidence, it's more than enough? It seems you're sort of elevating the value of the theory over the value of the evidence and I am not sure what the implications are.

 

Also, what is the value of the evolution theory to you personally, in your own words?

Theories can't exist without evidence. A theory defines a relationship between multiple pieces of evidence. Certainly, specific bits of evidence can occasionally be extremely important in therms of clarifying or establishing theory. On the other hand, the theory is a consistent, reproducible, and predictive construct that produces results. The data alone is not as valuable if you don't see the relationships that allow inferences and predictions. So as much as its always dangerous to make judgements, yes - I would say that the theory is more valuable than the raw data but also, completely dependent on the data.

[ralis]

On the other hand, the theory is a consistent, reproducible, and predictive construct that produces results. The data alone is not as valuable if you don't see the relationships that allow inferences and predictions.

 

Yes. By this process, random data that appears to fit the model will be discarded.

Edited May 25, 2011 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

Theories can't exist without evidence. A theory defines a relationship between multiple pieces of evidence. Certainly, specific bits of evidence can occasionally be extremely important in therms of clarifying or establishing theory. On the other hand, the theory is a consistent, reproducible, and predictive construct that produces results. The data alone is not as valuable if you don't see the relationships that allow inferences and predictions. So as much as its always dangerous to make judgements, yes - I would say that the theory is more valuable than the raw data but also, completely dependent on the data.

 

Thank you. I believe you are saying theories are useful insofar they are able to offer predictive power to those of us who wish to use them.

 

Let's put away microevolution, because I think microevolution is non-controversial and offers some useful predictive power.

 

Let's bring macroevolution to the forefront of our attention. Steve, what kind of predictive power of macroevolution do you use in your day to day life? If you find the theory of macroevolution valuable, can you please tell me a story or two from your daily life that demonstrates the value of macroevolution from your personal perspective?

[Immortal4life]

Some of the arguments being made here are going too far, and contribute to the phenomena in science that is known as the Knowledge Filter bias. What happens when a theory becomes too prominent is that the researchers get tunnel vision and they end up discarding evidence against their theory out of hand, simply labeling it "anamolous evidence" and ignoring it or explaining it away with frivilous superficial arguments and excuses. In the end they end up ignoring almost as much "Anomalous Evidence" as they have evidence to support whatever particular theory they subscribe to.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

This assumes the real answer exists.

 

Indeed. I honestly believe that some questions should not be answered or even attempted to answer.

 

I don't pay attention to that. When I reply I only worry about the post I am replying to. I care not about the thread per se.

 

Apparently I don't worry too much about it. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

... yes - I would say that the theory is more valuable than the raw data but also, completely dependent on the data.

 

This is important, I think.

[Marblehead]

Some of the arguments being made here are going too far, and contribute to the phenomena in science that is known as the Knowledge Filter bias. What happens when a theory becomes too prominent is that the researchers get tunnel vision and they end up discarding evidence against their theory out of hand, simply labeling it "anamolous evidence" and ignoring it or explaining it away with frivilous superficial arguments and excuses. In the end they end up ignoring almost as much "Anomalous Evidence" as they have evidence to support whatever particular theory they subscribe to.

 

This would be true if the investigation was designed to prove a point as opposed to finding the "truth". I won't say it has never happened because I am sure it has. But if a question is posed, without prior bias, (the hypothesis) and all evidence is considered then I think a useful theory can be established.

[manitou]

The only problem with peer-reviewed citations and such, is that it totally disallows for the person who is merely self-realized through their own inner work.