Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
me
Is this you? Claim Profile »
10 months ago
in Palin’s dangerous views on science education on The Michigan Messenger
My point is that the comparison isn't fair because the things being compared are verified to very different degrees and are very different in the way they are formulated.
But apparently you are not able to grasp that and so insist other people just want to waste your time. Guess what, you are not that important.
But apparently you are not able to grasp that and so insist other people just want to waste your time. Guess what, you are not that important.
1 reply
10 months ago
in Palin’s dangerous views on science education on The Michigan Messenger
«The first is that the notion that all scientific theories have to collapse down to a simple formula the way they sometimes do in physics and chemistry is false.»
I didn't mention (nor did I imply) simplicity anywhere on my post and certainly not just one formula. Please don't read things that I did not write in my post.
«The second is that I did not say that the two theories were alike in all ways, I said that neither one is a "philosophy of life." Both theories explain a
limited range of data and that is all they do. They don't tell us how to live our lives, how to treat others, what happens when we die or any other such qu
estions.»
I understood your point and agree with your main point. I just though (and think) your analogy is a poor one and due to the facts you mentioned misleading to outsiders.
Take for instance the recurrent analogy between Evolution by natural selection and Gravity theories (take GR "verified" in the weak limit to something like 1E-10). GR is quantifiably verifiable/refutable in very simple ways due in part to the fact that it's "phrased" in an unambiguous way. Evolution by natural selection cannot be verifiable/refutable in the same way due to the way it is phrased. Expressing oneself unambiguously (usually using mathematics) make
life in science a lot simpler.
I didn't mention (nor did I imply) simplicity anywhere on my post and certainly not just one formula. Please don't read things that I did not write in my post.
«The second is that I did not say that the two theories were alike in all ways, I said that neither one is a "philosophy of life." Both theories explain a
limited range of data and that is all they do. They don't tell us how to live our lives, how to treat others, what happens when we die or any other such qu
estions.»
I understood your point and agree with your main point. I just though (and think) your analogy is a poor one and due to the facts you mentioned misleading to outsiders.
Take for instance the recurrent analogy between Evolution by natural selection and Gravity theories (take GR "verified" in the weak limit to something like 1E-10). GR is quantifiably verifiable/refutable in very simple ways due in part to the fact that it's "phrased" in an unambiguous way. Evolution by natural selection cannot be verifiable/refutable in the same way due to the way it is phrased. Expressing oneself unambiguously (usually using mathematics) make
life in science a lot simpler.
2 replies
Rayne1
Um, so what's your point? You don't really seem to be making any other than you're bored and you're looking to chew up other's time and space as an amusement.
ebrayton
Well yes, it might be simpler if evolution could be expressed as a mathematical formula. But it can't, just like lots of theories in science can't. Evolution is really not a single theory, in fact, it is a bundle of theories and hypotheses, some of which can be expressed mathematically (many theories in population genetics, for instance). But the fact that it would be simpler if we could wrap it up in a simple formula doesn't make it false or even make it slightly more questionable. Different fields of science have to use different methods. Of course the kinetic theory of gasses is formulated differently and is verified in different ways from the theory of evolution; you seem to think that's some shocking reality when I think it's just painfully obvious. The kinetic theory of gasses is formulated differently and verified in different ways from the germ theory of disease as well, but what does that have to do with anything I've written? I never said or implied anything to the contrary, I just said that neither one is a philosophy of life. I really have no idea why that set you off on this irrelevant line of criticism.
10 months ago
in Palin’s dangerous views on science education on The Michigan Messenger
«This is even more silly. Evolution is a scientific theory and that is all it is. It is no more a "philosophy of life" than the kinetic theory of gasses is a philosophy of life. »
If this is so, please state the analogous laws to PN=nRT in evolutionary biology.
Until I find something like that clearly stated I find these analogies with physical theories very misleading to the ignorant masses.
If this is so, please state the analogous laws to PN=nRT in evolutionary biology.
Until I find something like that clearly stated I find these analogies with physical theories very misleading to the ignorant masses.
1 reply
ebrayton
There are two flaws in your argument. The first is that the notion that all scientific theories have to collapse down to a simple formula the way they sometimes do in physics and chemistry is false. The second is that I did not say that the two theories were alike in all ways, I said that neither one is a "philosophy of life." Both theories explain a limited range of data and that is all they do. They don't tell us how to live our lives, how to treat others, what happens when we die or any other such questions.
I understood perfectly -- you were sucking up bandwidth in an attempt to badger the author.