For general discussion that would be off-topic in other threads!
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
For general discussion that would be off-topic in other threads!
I think this is definitely the right question to ask, and I don’t have an easy answer for you — Rosenberg never took his metaphysical speculations further than he did here. But let’s see what we can do.
It’s pretty clear that necessity here cannot mean “logical necessity”, since we can conceive of possible worlds bereft of sapient beings to theorize about it. But conceivably, Rosenberg could have in mind something like this: in any universe that has basic physical laws and values of physical variables similar to us, it will necessarily be the case that that universe will grow knowers. And that makes it more than just a contingent fact that this particular universe happened to grow at least one kind of knower: us.
Upright Biped, charming the birds from the trees as usual:
That’s you, that is. And me. Cease your bigotry and stooliness … yet a short while later, Biped indulges the very behaviour he deplores. It’s OK when someone else starts it, I suppose.
I’m more bothered by Sal’s immediate reply:
Teaching materials? Gack! Pity any students who are the victims of whatever Salvatore Cordova will call “teaching”.
Upright Biped has really turned out to be a filthy hypocrite, though, hasn’t xe. Amazing, xe’s not even close to the worst UD has on board. And they constantly claim to have the (objective!!) moral high ground …
No matter how forcefully one tries to get the ID/creationists to focus on getting the science right – even by holding a mirror up to their faces; and you can’t seem to cajole them – the “discussions” always revert to word games and mud wrestling over who offended whom.
But it’s NEVER about the science.
Notice that nobody has jumped at the challenge to demonstrate their prowess at doing even a high school level chemistry/physics calculation.
Heya, I think it could make your day to notice that Uber-hypocrite Biped uses your example as an excuse to slander Lizzie (for hosting you) while oh-so-sweetly naming you a “p.o.s.” — which I quote only because I laugh every time I see it. What is xe, 11? if xe whispers the abbreviation xe can’t get in trouble with Teacher for using bad werdz? I hope it gives you a laugh, too.
Pretty goofy, I hafta say.
I don’t get the impression that Cordova recognizes the difference between the ID/creationist movement and other Christians.
Given the ID/creationist’s hatred of Biologos, I find it “interesting” that he would make such a comparison.
Well, when the Big Tent suits them…
I’ll post this here. For otherwise, it would be as off-topic as the rest of the comments in a particular thread.
I am treating Gregory’s comments as entertainment. And I do find them highly entertaining.
I’m not sure whether Gregory intends his posted comments as parody. If he does, then I’ll commend him for doing it so well.
Or maybe Poe’s law applies to sociology, too.
🙂
Maybe he is doing “sociological research” on the senses of humor of scientists.
Or not.
What is the falsifiable hypothesis of evolution?
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit
2. You offer no support for ID, just try to attack evolution, as always.
Richardthughes,
Richard, were you responding to me? I asked what is the falsifiable hypothesis of evolution?
There are many ways to falsify evolutionary theory.
One way is: ToE hypothesizes if all animals are related by common descent then they will share a common genetic code. Finding groups of animals (or ‘kinds’) that have different, incompatible genetic codes would be a falsification.
Another is: ToE hypothesizes if all animals are related by common descent then the two independent phylogenetic trees generated from the fossil record and from genetic data should show a high degree of correlation. Finding that the two trees were largely incongruent would be a falsification.
How many do you need?
Thorton, you often struggle with even the simplest of questions. Let me try to make it even simpler for you, if that is possible:
What is the HYPOTHESIS?
There are many. Pick either of the two I listed above if the concept of numbers above the value “one” confuses you.
Phoodoo, you seem scientifically confused. Data / observations / facts can falsify hypotheses. Still no pro ID stuff, just anti-evolutionary wailing? How impoverished your position must be.
Thorton, I didn’t ask for for some aspect of the ToE that you want to prove or disprove. I said, what is the hypothesis for the ToE? I know its a tough question.
What does the theory of evolution say? What is the theory?
It’s not that tough is you have access to Google, Phoodoo.
You must really be something in school.
phoodoo: “What country makes up Europe?”
teacher: “There are many. France, Germany, Italy…”
phoodoo: “NO YOU DUMB DUMMY I asked for the COUNTRY!!!”
Let’s help him along. He wont get it, because it isn’t monosyllabic:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
UC Berkeley: Understanding Evolution
So I will duly note, that you don’t have a theory of evolution, for which one can call it a falsifiable theory. Very duly noted.
Next please.
Oh the irony posting that below links to multiple definitions. Bless you! Still no support for ID? Let’s have ID’s theory and an ID experiment, if you can.
You spelled “dully” wrong.
Included in the list of posters who can not state a theory of evolution, which is falsifiable:
RichardHughes
Thorton (of course).
You can’t click through via links? Perhaps the internet is also too difficult for you. And the topic is ID predictions, feel free to cry in the Sandbox if you’re not capable of engaging in that dialogue.
Terrible trolling, Phoodoo. 2/10. Joe Gallien poor. Why not get and education and then get back to us.
Except for the two I already provided above. I guess you really can’t grasp numeric values greater than “one”.
phoodoo,
‘The’ theory of evolution would be that all of organic diversity is explained by generational changes in inheritable characters winnowed by biased and unbiased sampling in finite populations. It could be falsified by (for example) observation of an event of special creation. Then, we’d have to modify the ‘all’ part. It could also be falsified by a lack of consistent progression in fossil strata – only a single example would be required if unequivocal enough, hence the frequent reference to the “Precambrian Rabbit”.
It could also be falsified by the demonstration of species boundaries, which would render hypotheses of common ancestry, or change in single lineages, untenable. But these boundaries would have to operate backwards, not forwards. It’s not the theory that modern organisms are infinitely malleable, but that their current form is a modified version of their ancestors. An example of such a boundary would be a completely different genetic system.
None of these falsifications has yet been forthcoming – au contraire, continuing data gathering conforms to the paradigm, which is why the theory of evolution is in such robust health in 2014. Unfalsified and unfalsifiable are two different things.
Well played, thorton!
Ever wonder what ID would do without evolution? Where would you be then? You’d actually have to develop your own theory for a change, instead of always relying on being able to poke holes in someone else’s idea as cover for ID’s lack of predictive power.
If the theory is simply:
‘ that all of organic diversity is explained by generational changes in inheritable characters winnowed by biased and unbiased sampling in finite populations”
then you don’t mind if I call you all Intelligently Designed (some less than others obviously, sorry Thorton, Hotshoe) winnowed Lamarckists do you?
But I am not sure how rabbits in the Cambrian era falsifies this. You mean the rabbits weren’t separated from their shaft by the wind?
phoodoo,
You’re responding to the wrong individual, but either way I have no idea what you are on about.
phoodoo,
Here’s a link about what I was referring to:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/01/bill-nye-to-deb.html
I suspect that if you confined the study to this site you would find the opposite of your prediction. The same would apply at the hypocritically moderated Uncommon Descent.
I’ll give you Myers’ site. We don’t go there, Simba.
Does this make sense to you? If so please explain … because it reads like word salad to me … rabbits-shaft-wind ???
Just Googled the words rabbit shaft together. Tactical error.
Is this an eighth-grade science fair, phoodoo? That’s where they pretend that science = hypothesis-test-decision-conclusion.
But maybe I am old-fashioned and science is done that way today. Then enlighten me, what is the HYPOTHESIS of quantum mechanics?
This will probably sound as flakey to you as it did to me four or five years ago, but have you tried meditation or breath work?
My wife pulled me into a practice that includes a lot of both. I’ve gotten a lot of benefits from it, including a bit more insight into what people mean when they talk about “spiritual” experiences. I still think it’s just cool stuff you can do to your own mind rather than getting in touch with anything external, but it can be fun.
One breath work heavy meditation I do frequently is called Quantum Light Breath (available here). It is guided, so even if you have no experience with meditation you can get the experience. I’ve also done Stan Grof’s Holotropic Breath a couple of times. It can get quite intense.
I’ll move this to the sandbox, since it’s grossly off topic.
Now stop looking at me like that and sliding your chair away. I ain’t crazy, I tell ya!
GUANO
I’m puzzled by this post.
Someone whom I don’t recall posts a thread that doesn’t say anything.
My best guess is that this is a hacker break-in.
I remember reading Schneibster’s posts back in the IIDB days. Seemed like quite a bright fellow. Has he gone off the deep end?
After googling: yikes.
I think this is a case where TSZ would be served by moving an OP to Guano.
Was Schneibster banned at UD ? For what? What is his screen name? I don’t recall having seen a single post of him at UD. What is this Japan reference about ?
This OP appears to have nothing to do with this site. (I had a look a TR – bloody hell, some people must have a lot of spare time on their hands!). I’d unpublish it but I guess Lizzie should decide
As I am constitutionally opposed to censorship, I’ve moved all the comments attached to Schneibster’s OP to this thread. I had to delete the OP, as OPs can’t be readily moved. However, the content was this:
No, at Talk Rational, for 24 hours. He’ll be back, I expect.
No, it’s a friend who seems to be having some kind of crisis.