ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
thats not what i was saying
What Is Bad Science?
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
read up on fibernachi code
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
and its called organic algorithms . . . the mathematics that predict DNA sequences
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
i dont thnk he siad that . . he siad laws like th elaw of gravity . . . and theors are theores . . .laws unproven to be true . . . . seems pretty basic to me
theory of evolution and unproven body of laws governing a species evolution
law of gravity a constant in our reality here on earth, that law chagne sin space or on another planet with different atmosphere
so even laws or subject to conditions . . . .
laws define a state
theories propose and infer/imply a state
idk im just brainstorming . . .
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Paging Dr. Feynman... Dr. Feynman, you are needed in operating room #6...
[video=youtube;M5fc4oV2F3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5fc4oV2F3o[/video]
Then there is his classic clip on the Scientific Method...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
I think Feynman would turn in his grave if he heard you comparing evolution to social sciences
He goes on about organics not being proven to be better
Evolution has been shown again and again to be true
Again I'll ask how can you treat evolution as a law when a law is an equation (one we haven't discovered yet)
I'll settle for one example in lieu of explanation
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
i think you are mixing up the theory of evolution and the term evolution . . .they are independent of each other
evolution happens it is true 100%
the theroy or evolution is a theory not a law and has continued to be argued to this day . . .genetic drift and random mutation/variation have very strong arguments as causality to evolution being true vs Darwin's theory based on observations and conclusions at the time
evolution happens it is true 100%
the theroy or evolution is a theory not a law and has continued to be argued to this day . . .genetic drift and random mutation/variation have very strong arguments as causality to evolution being true vs Darwin's theory based on observations and conclusions at the time
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Whoa there, champ... I'm not here saying anything about evolution.
I can't treat evolution as a law... unless you can parametrize variables for it.
Perhaps Agent-based modeling can be useful in exploring particular "micro-theories" of evolution?
And I don't think Feynman would care over me posting an old clip of him on a stoner forum. But he might play the bongos for you while you rhapsodize on about the differences of laws and theories...
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Please define the 2 as separate from each other?
I don't know of anyone apart from bible bashers who contend Darwin's work was the final chapter for theory of evolution
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
You quoted me for that clip and bolded my quote
If that was not your purpose then why?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Indeed I did quote you and use that clip... The reason being I wished to address the thread's original question:
What is Bad Science?
However, since you are interested in my opinion, I'll just look at accepted definitions from the English language.
Theory --A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...
Law -- a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present
How can evolution be a law if the phenomenon doesn't always occur?
It is a probabilistic subject... until you get down to the DNA, I suppose... but then it ceases to be a "theory of evolution" and a function of genetic chemistry and phenotype expressions. Laws of processes, perhaps.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
If this is a deterministic universe and we were able to get all the variables (like down to neutrino events) then possibly it would work
However it's mindbogglingly complicated and I doubt even in the next thousand years we wouldn't have comps powerful enough to run such equation even if we did find it
That still doesn't make sense tho
However it's mindbogglingly complicated and I doubt even in the next thousand years we wouldn't have comps powerful enough to run such equation even if we did find it
- people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation.
That still doesn't make sense tho
heckler73
Well-Known Member
A thousand years is a long time for Moore's Law
Is it a law? It has equations!
Is it testable? Depends on definitions...
Is it Science?
And yes, I agree; his original statement was poorly crafted.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Moore's law cannot carry on indefinitely it's already starting to fail[/B]
A thousand years is a long time for Moore's Law
Is it a law? It has equations!
Is it testable? Depends on definitions...
Is it Science?
And yes, I agree; his original statement was poorly crafted.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226758/Physicist_says_Moore_s_Law_is_collapsing_?pageNumber=1
While I pulled a thousand years out of my arse I stand by it wrt the complexity needed to for evolution equation
Doer
Well-Known Member
But, these changes we observe as Evolution are mostly (completely) random. For it not to be random, there has to be a design.
No design is necessary, obviously. Evolution is a Theory. But, that is a grant, we hard science types, yield to the Paleo-types.
As far as I am concerned it is no Theory at all. It is still just a very solid Hypothesis. In real science, the game is to disprove the big H. But, it is non-observational and takes place in the most spotty evidence chain of all, the paleo-record. As such, there is no instance of an experiment to show that Evolution is impossible. Yet, it is not proven to be actual. No Theory is actual.
We cannot "evolve" lab mice, for instance. We cannot turn off Gravity and we cannot observe the Big Bang.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Heheh... Moore's Law was a calculable limit in the first place, based on the gap limits for layering silicon (if one looks at processing speed).
But it's funny that it is a "law", and not "Moore's Theory"...
As for the model of evolution, it is indubitably more complex than even the BC Gov't's model of the BC Economy.
But this may be where Biology has its role to play. They need to develop their laws of processes, and through those types of simplifications, variables in the grand model of evolution can be compiled more efficiently, and reduced in number.
However, I am not a Biologist. Any discussion on the topic from my end is at best an exploration in degrees of naivety.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Here's a differing perspective on some of the observed evidence. It's generally assumed that the Universe is expanding - based on what we observe. But think about us if we were circling the drain of a bathtub. Things on the edges of the bathtub would appear to be getting further away - because we are going down the drain at a significantly greater rate than the rest of the water (or Universe) is. It's possible either way, but sometimes we just like to jump to conclusions. And I'd argue that some people's belief in science and the scientific method (and, by proxy - the people - key world being people - who practice them) is well beyond reasonable and well into the grounds of religious. If only because their egos are really gigantic and overwhelming their ability to reason and think objectively. I see it plenty from many folks on here who claim to be kings of objectivity and who probably even have degrees applicable to some field of study (but hold some really foolish and religious like positions based on bad science - see the entire GMO debate where traditional safety study standards have been thrown out the window for "substantive equivalence").I dont know Mr Neutron..... The Big Bang Theory didnt just arise out of some guys wet dream..... It arose from observational evidence, in fact! Previous to the "BBT", scientists thought that the Universe was in a "Solid State" where galaxies created new matter as they moved further away. Since Hubble (you know, the guy they named the telescope after) showed that the Universe was not in a solid state, but expanding, if its expanding, it has to have started from something small, right?
There's also the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is everywhere at about 3 degrees in temperature. That's the static you see on analog televisions when a television station isnt on the channel you are watching. Since the CMB is "everywhere" around the Universe, that also suggests pretty strongly that our modern view on cosmology is accurate enough that we're at the very least in the right direction, if not pretty spot on. The WMAP data is very very easy to read!
Many less people argue the big bang "theory" these days because of so much observational evidence in so many different fields that suggest the very same thing.........
Sorry for typos, posting on a stupid smartphone.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
If we were circling the drain we would be rapidly moving towards our neighbours while moving away from edge of bath...
heckler73
Well-Known Member
For every obsession, there is a zealot.
In Economics, one of the first things one learns is it is a religion. They make no bones about it. Many (if not most) of the precepts are based on a quasi-faith.
(Hard) Sciences, in general, are susceptible to these issues, too. Look at the debates of Dark Energy/Matter in Astrophysics, for example. Or the somewhat egregious arguments in climatology.
But if it were not for the impassioned participants, how would the envelope of cognizance grow? It would be a far more static affair composed of mostly "Yes-men" (and Yes-women)...
It took a long time to get from Ptolemy to Copernicus (Aristarchus, be damned!)... Without the ability of zealots (since then) to communicate--and test--their ideas, where would we be now?
Would we have goats that lactate spider silk?
I think not !!!
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Depending on where you were, these things might not be as readily perceptible - especially on a gigantic scale if you're not really looking.