Soo.... your saying "proof of principle" is a scientific proof?

Your second line is the one I gave you an education on a year ago. That was you who confused theories and hypotheses. If you consider educating people about theories vs. hypotheses dumbing down Ohio kid's, your mistaken. Here it is a Dr. who confuses them repeatedly. Just admit your wrong and this will be over. If you do not care to admit you are wrong please post one scientific proof to back up your claims. I am not aware of any. I would have to call the publishers of every text book I have had since 7th grade science. It's not the nature of science. Science never proves anything. It only disproves. I've said this repeatedly. It's literally in every book in the first couple of chapters.

Give me one scientific proof. Just one.

It's not the nature of science. Science never proves anything. It only disproves.

Mach, please explain. Sounds to me like you are demanding something at the same time you are saying that it cannot exist.

That's the point....
He demands this

"and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories"

you can never prove a theory. You can not find a scientific proof. They don't exist.

Just checking in to see if Torch has found a scientific proof yet.

I'll be waiting.

Answer this question if you like. Can you prove a theory?

"and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories"

Is it possible to do what you ask?

(05-31-2009 07:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Soo.... your saying "proof of principle" is a scientific proof?

Your second line is the one I gave you an education on a year ago. That was you who confused theories and hypotheses. If you consider educating people about theories vs. hypotheses dumbing down Ohio kid's, your mistaken. Here it is a Dr. who confuses them repeatedly. Just admit your wrong and this will be over. If you do not care to admit you are wrong please post one scientific proof to back up your claims. I am not aware of any. I would have to call the publishers of every text book I have had since 7th grade science. It's not the nature of science. Science never proves anything. It only disproves. I've said this repeatedly. It's literally in every book in the first couple of chapters.

If you want to call those publishers, feel free. Textbooks in general are poor, and the ones used in public schools are notroiously bad.

But, here it is in terms probably simple enough for you, Mach.

Say I mix a solution of lead nitrate with one of sodium iodide. You know what will happen? A yellow precipitate will form in the liquid. It is lead iodide.

And what I have proven is this: that mixing two liquids can generate a solid as a product.

There, done. I have PROVEN something, and that something is useful, b/c solids precipitating out of liquids is important for industrial processes, biological processes, and the plumbing in your house.

It also demonstrates that your comment "Science never PROVES it only disproves" is utter nonsense. There. Done. QED. PROOF.

What I have NOT proved is that my demonstration was a metathesis reaction; I have not "proved" atomic orbital theory; I have not "proved" molecular orbital theory, I have not even "proved" simple atomic theory.

I have demonstrated evidence that is consistent with these theories, I have offered inductive logical evidence for these theories, but I have not proven them.

Let's take another example. Mathematically, I can prove, deductively, that dipoles should behave with opposite poles attracting, and like poles repelling. Otherwise you won't have consistency.

However, when I gather a few magnets and show some ends attract and others repel, I have not "proven" they are dipoles. I have only shown that my set of magnets behaves in a way consistent with the theory that they are dipoles. This theory may only hold b/c I set up certain conditions to make it look as if they are acting like dipoles (fraud or hoax), or it may be that other theories are equally supported by this demonstration. For example, leprechauns could be adjusting these magnets every time I put them together. So I have not "proven" any particular theory.

What scientists will do is select the "best" theory based on other evidence (no other evidence for leprechauns) and assumptions used commonly in science (i.e. Occum's razor). The dipole theory is supported, and the most consistent w/ the accepted scientific method, and will continue to be accepted until it is disproven. Sometimes no "best" theory emerges, and competing theories stick around.

But make no mistake, this demonstration of magnets can also be considered an inductive "proof" that magnets behave in a certain way. Science has proven something. Once again, linguistics are an important part of this discussion.

This discussion of scientific theory is what you were trying to get at with your comments, Mach. However if someone is talking about philosophy and epistomology, they'd better take care to use the necessary precision in their language. You Mach, write all sorts of nonsense because you are sloppy in your language. You're sloppy in your language b/c you're sloppy in your thinking. You lack the rigor to understand science, let alone teach it.

(05-31-2009 08:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Give me one scientific proof. Just one.

It's not the nature of science. Science never proves anything. It only disproves.

Mach, please explain. Sounds to me like you are demanding something at the same time you are saying that it cannot exist.

Goal of Science - Provide explanations for observed phenomina and to establish generalizations that can predict the relationship between these and other phenomina.

We are constantly seeking explanations for what we observe is happening. As we seek to understand, we develops an explanation, hypothesis. In the western world we have formalized this process into what is termed the Scientific Method. The scientific method is a sequences of steps designed to lead to the development of theories, tested explanations, of the phenomenon that we have observed around us.

A hypothesis that can not be disproved becomes a theory; a scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain phenomina; the analysis of a set of facts in their ideal relations to one another.

A good theory is simple! The 14th century philosopher William of Occam said,"Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum" ("Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"). This is referred to as Occam's razor because it pares a theory to its bare essentials.

At its most basic, the traditional Scientific Method is a five step process. These are:

http://www2.gasou.edu/geol/2.0SM1.html

Definition of the Problem.
Gathering of Relevant Data.
Formulation of a Hypothesis.
Observation or Experimentation to test Hypothesis.
Acceptance, Modification, or Rejection of the Hypothesis.

As with most things these days, the process has become more defined and, therefore we have advanced methodologies:

Learning The Complete Method of Creative Problem-Solving & Decision-Making SM -14; the 14 Ingredients of the Scientific Method.

http://www.scientificmethod.com/

Our Proceedure

We start the scientific method with observations. We observe events and seek to explain them. Such an explanation is initially termed a hypothesis. A Hypothesis is:

A trial idea about the nature of the observation, or the connections between a chain of events, or cause and effect relationships.

The best available approximation to the truth.

It is a straw man- there is nothing sacred about it.

It is used as a framework for posing questions.

It is tested by asking and answering questions.

With more and more thought, it is possible to develop more and more explanations, some more plausible than others. Having developed a family of explanations, hypotheses, it is necessary to test our hypotheses. What we try to do is sequentially show that the hypotheses are wrong.

The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically. Now, as in a court of law, we may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; but only by not being able to disprove. Not disproving is not the same as proving, it does not mean that our hypothesis is right, it only means that no one has been able to develop a test which actually disproves our explanations.

Hypotheses which can not be disproved are elevated to the exalted position of a theory. A theory is a working hypothesis, explanation, that is used by the scientific community to continue to expand their knowledge and understanding of the world around us. We can use theories to make predictions about the behavior of observable phenominon.

Testing a hypothesis

The test we use to disprove a hypotheses is called an experiment. The test is designed to answer a question. The question is designed to disprove the hypothesis. Good questions can be answere for or against - yes or no. Therefore, a good test provides us with a definitive answer. For example, if we do the test and obtain a positive result, then we can say we have disproved the hypothesis; then it is necessary to modify or restate the hypothesis. But, what about the converse, if the test is negative, the hypothesis is not disproven and we try to ask other questions to disprove it. If our hypothesis cannot be disproved then it may become a theory. Unfortunately, if the answer is not positive or negative, but somewhere in between, we are left suspendid inthe process and need to restart the process.

Now, we can have multiple hypotheses. We can test a number of these at once, such that the results of the experiment serves to disprove, discredit, a number of these at once. Or we can have mutually exclusive hypotheses such that if one is true, not disproven, the others are false, disproved. However, such convoluted reasoning and testing can be self defeating. That is, if we do not obtain the expected results, we may not be able to say anything about any of the hypotheses; this would be a poor experiment.

Good Science versus Bad Science

Qualities of good science:

Not based on authority
Testable
Repeatable
Universal
Measurable (Tangible)
Observable
Narrow (Occam's razor)/Simple

Designing an Experiment

Method of Agreement - All people suffering beriberi have diets low in thiamine.
Method of Differences - Control group and an Experimental group.
Method of Concomitant variations - the more (or less) of a variable given the more (or less) the response.
Statistical Significance, i.e., not just a matter of chance - repeatable.

A good experiment is difficult to design. It is best to keep experiments simple, to pare them down to the least number of elements possible, and to design it to produce definitive results, which can be unequivocally interpreted. In reality, it is frequently better to run a series of tests, experiments, rather than performing only one. The reason is we are frequently seeking to identify what happens when we do something; we want to know what will happen if we make a single change, all other factors held constant.

That change we are making is called a variable; the constant portion is called the control. We would prefer to only change one variable at a time; because, if we make a whole bunch of changes, it is difficult to determine a direct cause and effect. We are frequently better off making a small change, observing the result, making a little bigger change, observing the result, and then evaluating this sequence of events.

Answer the question please. A simple yes or no.

"and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories"

Is it possible to do what you ask?

One more thing Mach,

If this is the sort of crap that you're being asked to teach, no wonder the US education system is such a failure. Yours is a pedantic system that takes all interest and joy from learning. You mince definitions and treat them as sacred, testing on minutia and the contrived, while and discounting the useful and applicable.

(06-01-2009 09:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Answer the question please. A simple yes or no.

I will not answer your questions until you address the points already made.

Quote:If you want to call those publishers, feel free. Textbooks in general are poor, and the ones used in public schools are notroiously bad.

But, here it is in terms probably simple enough for you, Mach.

Say I mix a solution of lead nitrate with one of sodium iodide. You know what will happen? A yellow precipitate will form in the liquid. It is lead iodide.

And what I have proven is this: that mixing two liquids can generate a solid as a product.

What you have observed or shown is two liquids can precipitate a solid. There is no scientific proof that liquids form solids. You have observed that they can. Like a lizard species that is marooned on an island can over time differentiate into two seperate species. I have not proven evolution. I just observed that a species can differentiate or radially adapt over time.

Quote:It also demonstrates that your comment "Science never PROVES it only disproves"

It's not my comment. It's the basic tenet of the scientific method that you claim yourself a Dr. of.


"I have demonstrated evidence that is consistent with these theories, I have offered inductive logical evidence for these theories, but I have not proven them."


Hey, your starting to understand. Good job. BTW this goes totally against this

"Anyway, there are big holes in current evolutionary theory...and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories...not for someone else to disprove them. "

Quote:Mathematically, I can prove, deductively, that dipoles should behave with opposite poles attracting, and like poles repelling.

Another appropiate response. Mathematics is based upon proofs. We all remember the 3,4,5 triangle produces a 45 degree angle. You will find proofs at the very foundation of Mathematics. You like to mix facts with falsehoods. The work of charlatans.

Quote:However, when I gather a few magnets and show some ends attract and others repel, I have not "proven" they are dipoles. I have only shown that my set of magnets behaves in a way consistent with the theory that they are dipoles. This theory may only hold b/c I set up certain conditions to make it look as if they are acting like dipoles (fraud or hoax), or it may be that other theories are equally supported by this demonstration. For example, leprechauns could be adjusting these magnets every time I put them together. So I have not "proven" any particular theory.

What scientists will do is select the "best" theory based on other evidence (no other evidence for leprechauns) and assumptions used commonly in science (i.e. Occum's razor). The dipole theory is supported, and the most consistent w/ the accepted scientific method, and will continue to be accepted until it is disproven. Sometimes no "best" theory emerges, and competing theories stick around.

again nice job..... not sure how this answers if you can prove a theory, but I don't have a problem with any of this


But make no mistake, this demonstration of magnets can also be considered an inductive "proof" that magnets behave in a certain way. Science has proven something. Once again, linguistics are an important part of this discussion.


On one hand you say this

"Science has proven something."

then on the next hand you say this

I have demonstrated evidence that is consistent with these theories, I have offered inductive logical evidence for these theories, but I have not proven them.

You contradict yourself to prove a point that is impossible to prove. Re read the two things above and tell me how this is not a contradiction. You wrap yourself in lies because you won't admit you asked the impossible.

Then at the end the "coup de grace"

When someone has proven you a liar. You result to the personal attacks.

"You Mach, write all sorts of nonsense because you are sloppy in your language. You're sloppy in your language b/c you're sloppy in your thinking. You lack the rigor to understand science, let alone teach it."

Just answer the simple simple question. Leave out the personal attacks.

Answer the question please. A simple yes or no.

"and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories"

Is it possible to do what you ask?

I will write a response daily until you answer this simple question. A simple yes or no will do. The ball is in your court.

You guys are too much..... Answer this.

How did life and the universe begin?

This is great:

Torch:

It also demonstrates that your comment "Science never PROVES it only disproves" is utter nonsense. There. Done. QED. PROOF.


Artifice:

The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically. Now, as in a court of law, we may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; but only by not being able to disprove. Not disproving is not the same as proving, it does not mean that our hypothesis is right, it only means that no one has been able to develop a test which actually disproves our explanations.

(06-01-2009 12:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:If you want to call those publishers, feel free. Textbooks in general are poor, and the ones used in public schools are notroiously bad.

But, here it is in terms probably simple enough for you, Mach.

Say I mix a solution of lead nitrate with one of sodium iodide. You know what will happen? A yellow precipitate will form in the liquid. It is lead iodide.

And what I have proven is this: that mixing two liquids can generate a solid as a product.

What you have observed or shown is two liquids can precipitate a solid. There is no scientific proof that liquids form solids.

Ok Des Cartes, then what can be proven?

Quote: You have observed that they can.

Is English your second language?

Quote:

Quote:It also demonstrates that your comment "Science never PROVES it only disproves"

It's not my comment. It's the basic tenet of the scientific method that you claim yourself a Dr. of.

That's not my method. I tried to explain how this is tied to the formal definition of theories...but this comment is just gibberish from some philosophy quack who wants to baffle people with his brilliance.

If I had said this to my research adviser he'd have said three words, "Don't be stupid!"

Quote: BTW this goes totally against this

"Anyway, there are big holes in current evolutionary theory...and there is an obligation on their side to prove their theories...not for someone else to disprove them. "

Fine, then, "It's up to their side to offer evidence to support their theories." Does that phrasing make you happy?

Quote:Mathematically, I can prove, deductively, that dipoles should behave with opposite poles attracting, and like poles repelling.

Quote:Another appropiate response. Mathematics is based upon proofs. We all remember the 3,4,5 triangle produces a 45 degree angle.

I don't remember any such thing.

Quote: You will find proofs at the very foundation of Mathematics. You like to mix facts with falsehoods. The work of charlatans.

Haha. Charlatan.

Just for the record Mach, I think you'll find that comment about math to be untrue. The Greeks loved the formal deductive proof, that's true unfortuanately (and I have discussed this w/ some math profs, ones who consult for the TV show 'Numbers') that ideal understates the role of experimentation and observation. Arithmetic, is the foundation of mathematics.

The Greek ideal of the theoretical and abstract being superior to the base physical, is actually quite opposed to science. Indeed it is blending those notions that confuses you, and is the work of charlatans. Those high priests of "the scientific method" who would put their musings as the sacred texts for people to follow.

Moreover, you're starting to venture into the discussion of logical systems. Every logical system makes assumptions. They are founded on them. In science (and most any human venture) assumptions are based on experimental observations. They form inductive proofs for the starting points of deductive proofs.

At any rate, you are mixing together all sorts of abstract ideas, again showing you don't have the rigor to take any one thread to completion.

Quote:

Quote:However, when I gather a few magnets and show some ends attract and others repel, I have not "proven" they are dipoles. I have only shown that my set of magnets behaves in a way consistent with the theory that they are dipoles. This theory may only hold b/c I set up certain conditions to make it look as if they are acting like dipoles (fraud or hoax), or it may be that other theories are equally supported by this demonstration. For example, leprechauns could be adjusting these magnets every time I put them together. So I have not "proven" any particular theory.

What scientists will do is select the "best" theory based on other evidence (no other evidence for leprechauns) and assumptions used commonly in science (i.e. Occum's razor). The dipole theory is supported, and the most consistent w/ the accepted scientific method, and will continue to be accepted until it is disproven. Sometimes no "best" theory emerges, and competing theories stick around.

again nice job..... not sure how this answers if you can prove a theory, but I don't have a problem with any of this

Of course you don't. Because it's all true. It's just that it's simple enough for you to follow. If you break down complex arguments like global warming or current evolutionary theory, into more simple propositions you will find that they don't have such empirical support.

If you want to argue semantics, then they fail not because they haven't "proven their theory," but because they haven't provided ample support, and they pruposely ignore evidence that disproves their theory. However, in the common vernacular, an experiment that provides great support for a theory is often said to "prove" it. Look at the language used in this discussion of the germ theory of disease

Quote:Robert Koch was the first scientist to devise a series of proofs used to verify the germ theory of disease[1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

You are simply arguing semantics, Mach. Not terribly impressive.

Quote:

Quote:But make no mistake, this demonstration of magnets can also be considered an inductive "proof" that magnets behave in a certain way. Science has proven something. Once again, linguistics are an important part of this discussion.

On one hand you say this

"Science has proven something."

then on the next hand you say this

"I have demonstrated evidence that is consistent with these theories, I have offered inductive logical evidence for these theories, but I have not proven them."

You contradict yourself to prove a point that is impossible to prove. Re read the two things above and tell me how this is not a contradiction.

Quite simple. I even said it before. Scientists don't "prove" their theories (in the formal use of the word). However, science proves all sorts of things, using experimental results to provide proofs of principle, and inductive proofs as to the behavior of the universe.
You were the one who said, "science never proves," and that indeed is utter nonsense.

Quote:When someone has proven you a liar. You result to the personal attacks.

"You Mach, write all sorts of nonsense because you are sloppy in your language. You're sloppy in your language b/c you're sloppy in your thinking. You lack the rigor to understand science, let alone teach it."

Personal attack? You don't even understand that that means. If I said you were ugly, that would be a personal attack. Citing (and demonstrating) your sloppy use of language and inability to reason is germaine to this discussion.

(06-01-2009 01:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is great:

Torch:

It also demonstrates that your comment "Science never PROVES it only disproves" is utter nonsense. There. Done. QED. PROOF.


Artifice:

The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically. Now, as in a court of law, we may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; but only by not being able to disprove. Not disproving is not the same as proving, it does not mean that our hypothesis is right, it only means that no one has been able to develop a test which actually disproves our explanations.

Yes, it is great. Since my proof is known to be true, then Artifice's referenced quote is summarily proven to be false. Logic is a wonderful thing.

Now that we have that settled, perhaps we can stop quoting lunkhead philosphy professors who couldn't get dressed in the morning if they actually believed what they taught in their classes.

Fine, then, "It's up to their side to offer evidence to support their theories." Does that phrasing make you happy?


This is the closest you have ever come to admitting you were wrong. Wasn't that hard. This is a step in the right direction. Yes, this makes me happy. Now there is PLENTY of evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. Where would you like to start. Fossil Record? Biochemistry? How about "The Carribean Anole Lizards I linked before". This is a positive step for you. A FINE, THEN....................

(06-01-2009 08:27 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fine, then, "It's up to their side to offer evidence to support their theories." Does that phrasing make you happy?


This is the closest you have ever come to admitting you were wrong. Wasn't that hard. This is a step in the right direction. Yes, this makes me happy. Now there is PLENTY of evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. Where would you like to start. Fossil Record? Biochemistry? How about "The Carribean Anole Lizards I linked before". This is a positive step for you. A FINE, THEN....................

Fossil record? Haha. Are you a paleontologist? No? Try some of these quotes on for size:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fss...knwngwhthr

Biochemistry? How many books have you authored on the subject? You keep ducking that question. Try reading Michael Behe's book on the subject. BTW, there's a quote in the introduction that made me think of you. It has to do with looking at the details of the subject. It takes rigor and scrutiny, you can't just gloss over it w/ a HS teacher mentality.

Fact is Mach, if you really researched the subject, acted as a true scientist and didn't just believe every word b/c it's in your Earth Science textbook, you'd find what I've been saying is true.

But that will take effort...

.

And I am so happy to see that when they exhumed these Tard's for the Ceremonies and Popped Open the Caskets ... the Remains were in such Fantastic Shape ....

HERE IS THE PHOTO FROM THE EXHUMATION:



Don't they look like they just Died YESTERDAY ????

Amazing ..... AMAZING I TELL YOU !!!!!!!!

.

Stephen E. Jones???? Are you serious?

(06-02-2009 08:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Stephen E. Jones???? Are you serious?

Yet another one of your perpetual logical fallacies aside, I refer you to the quotes found on that page. Quotes from some of the most ardant evolutionists.

You do grow tiresome, Mach. Like a 4 year old who constantly reaches out to touch the hot stove top, you keep repeating the same absurdities over and over.

Heaven forbid you actually take the time to learn something before you post on this board...that would be so out of character.

So I leave the discussion with this

Quote:In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower.

But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

Now, not every would-be education major goes on to complete her degree - 77.4 percent of those who do are women - nor does every college graduate with an education major go on to teach in the public schools. But since teaching's best and brightest so frequently quit upon exposure to the labyrinthine public school system and since most teachers who fail their competency tests are still allowed to teach - in Illinois, 7.8 percent of the teachers who have taken these extraordinarily easy tests since 1988 have failed them - it is not logical to conclude that the average teacher's IQ is any higher than the average would-be education major.

(06-02-2009 09:08 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-02-2009 08:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Stephen E. Jones???? Are you serious?

Yet another one of your perpetual logical fallacies aside, I refer you to the quotes found on that page. Quotes from some of the most ardant evolutionists.

You do grow tiresome, Mach. Like a 4 year old who constantly reaches out to touch the hot stove top, you keep repeating the same absurdities over and over.

Heaven forbid you actually take the time to learn something before you post on this board...that would be so out of character.

So I leave the discussion with this

Quote:In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower.

But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

Now, not every would-be education major goes on to complete her degree - 77.4 percent of those who do are women - nor does every college graduate with an education major go on to teach in the public schools. But since teaching's best and brightest so frequently quit upon exposure to the labyrinthine public school system and since most teachers who fail their competency tests are still allowed to teach - in Illinois, 7.8 percent of the teachers who have taken these extraordinarily easy tests since 1988 have failed them - it is not logical to conclude that the average teacher's IQ is any higher than the average would-be education major.

Since when is the SAT a measure of intelligence? How do we even define intelligence?