Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Cypress said:
Educated speculation is part and parcel of science; it is where ideas and hypotheses are cultivated.

You would know this if you had not telegraphed your ignorance about quantum mechanics and planetary science on this thread.
Click to expand...

Into the Night said:
Science isn't a casino. It is not speculation. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
A hypothesis comes out a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
There is no such thing as 'planetary science'.

It is YOU using buzzwords.
Click to expand...

You got it exactly ass backwards. A theory comes out of a hypothesis which has been repeatedly tested..

Einstein came up with the theory of special relativity by sitting in a Swiss street car, speculating about the behaviour of the speed of light.
 
BidenPresident said:
What was Darwin's philosophy of science?
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out already Darwin and his contemporaries considered themselves as practicing natural philosophy. Darwin’s philosophy of science was that it [science] was equipped to answer such questions that might be considered beyond the reach of science.

I don’t think there’s any debate that Darwin ‘broadened’ science in that respect. In fact, it’s one of the reasons he is such an important thinker. Darwin went on to expound on his philosophy in The Descent of Man.

Moreover, there’s a good argument that the science that deals with origins has never ceased being natural philosophy.
 
Cypress said:
Who was the female researcher Watson and Crick got a lot of their data from, but then neglected to share any credit with her once the accolades started rolling in?
Click to expand...

Right, I saw that on TV. I don't know. I met him through my wife at a UCSD Neuroscience something something.... hold a cocktail and stroll about thingy...
 
Darth Omar said:
As has been pointed out already Darwin and his contemporaries considered themselves as practicing natural philosophy. Darwin’s philosophy of science was that it [science] was equipped to answer such questions that might be considered beyond the reach of science.
Click to expand...


Please explain what science "beyond the reach of science" is. Never heard of Darwin commenting on this idea.
 
Cypress said:
Educated speculation is part and parcel of science; it is where ideas and hypotheses are cultivated.

You would know this if you had not telegraphed your ignorance about quantum mechanics and planetary science on this thread.
Click to expand...

My sense of certainty is infuriated by that idea of matter bubbling in and out of existence randomly in quantum theory. That pisses me off.
 
Cypress said:
You can quibble and whine about his syntax, but it is clear that what he wrote is reasonable.

Some of history's most preeminent scientists were philosophically-thinking scientists.

The division between science and philosophy is a recent artifact of the 19th century. All investigations of the natural world used to be called natural philosophy..

Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein were philosophically thinking scientists, and Einstein in particular openly admitted that.
Click to expand...

It ain't a PhD for nuttin...
 
Micawber said:
My sense of certainty is infuriated by that idea of matter bubbling in and out of existence randomly in quantum theory. That pisses me off.
Click to expand...

The quantum foam and quantum entanglement are kind of spooky.

Quantum physics freaks me out a little because it calls into question our very conception of objective reality.

We have a very good idea of how quantum mechanics works.

We really are in the dark about why it works.
 
AProudLefty said:
When an animal inherits a better trait to survive, it's generation continues to carry the better trait, helping them to survive better.
Click to expand...

It would have be a novel trait; furthermore, ‘the faster gazelle’ would have to be lucky enough to always being paying attention the water hole lest it be eaten by a croc. ALWAYS, ALWAYS be alert at the water hole. Or otherwise get eaten when raw speed wouldn’t matter.

Then, it has a chance to pass on the novel trait. Or well, wait. If it’s a male it may have to be a dominant male or may not even get the chance to.

Amazing to think it actually worked that way. Or, maybe it actually didn’t lol. Our natural philosophers assure us it did though. I can never decide if they’re right or not.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
So how do you get the variety to select from in the first place? You have to suspend natural selection. You can't.
Click to expand...

Genetic variation and genetic mutation are inherent in all species.

Environmentally-favorable genetic mutations are preferentially selected for survival.
 
Darth Omar said:
It would have be a novel trait; furthermore, ‘the faster gazelle’ would have to be lucky enough to always being paying at the water hole lest it be eaten by a croc. ALWAYS, ALWAYS be alert at the water hole. Or otherwise get eaten when raw speed wouldn’t matter.

Then, it has a chance to pass on the novel trait. Or well, wait. If it’s a male it may have to be a dominant male or may not even get the chance to.

Amazing to think it actually worked that way. Or, maybe it actually didn’t lol. Our natural philosophers assure us it did though. I can never decide if they’re right or not.
Click to expand...

Well if the "faster gazelles" were kept being eaten by crocs, then they would be selected out of the evolutionary tree, wouldn't it? ;)
 
BidenPresident said:
Please explain what science "beyond the reach of science" is. Never heard of Darwin commenting on this idea.
Click to expand...

You’re familiar with this subject lol?

Such questions as origins of species, and ultimately man, were considered part of philosophy or religion during Darwin’s day. And again, as pointed out already, they considered themselves natural *philosophers*.

And not improperly, in my mind. It’s not *logically* unfair to consider them natural historians because what they come up with is an historical account of nature. That might actually be the most accurate description.
 
AProudLefty said:
Well if the "faster gazelles" were kept being eaten by crocs, then they would be selected out of the evolutionary tree, wouldn't it? ;)
Click to expand...

If you’re talking about raw speed [instead of reflexes], yes they would be lol.

Don’t think about it too much or you’ll wind up a skeptic like me.
 
Darth Omar said:
You’re familiar with this subject lol?

Such questions as origins of species, and ultimately man, were considered part of philosophy or religion during Darwin’s day. And again, as pointed out already, they considered themselves natural *philosophers*.

And not improperly, in my mind. It’s not *logically* unfair to consider them natural historians because what they come up with is an historical account of nature. That might actually be the most accurate description.
Click to expand...

Darwin was not giving a historical account, but the causes for change in species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top