Just to go back and clear up the whole reason I started this argument in the first place is this: if you want to say evolution shouldn't be called true because you don't have 100% confidence in it, then everything you call true shouldn't be called true, because you don't have 100% confidence in anything. I think I might have let myself get a bit sidetracked into philosophy, but whatever you consider truth to be, you have to admit that saying that we are only 99% confident (or some similarly near 100% number) in evolution is a pretty weak argument against accepting it.
well, yeagh. But thats not what I was arguing at any point in the side-track :). It is perfectly legit to argue that something is true, even if you only think it is true, however. The whole purpose of Scientific reasoning is to determine the objective truth through observation. To do that, you inherently have to argue "X is true". Its accepted, generally, that an "I think..." is implied.
what I objected to was that it seemed like your statement "its accepted taht a thing is true when you have a sufficient confidence level" (paraphrased) was intentionally omitting the "I think..." portion of "a thing is true" and instead stating it as an objective truth.
well, yeagh. But thats not what I was arguing at any point in the side-track :). It is perfectly legit to argue that something is true, even if you only think it is true, however. The whole purpose of Scientific reasoning is to determine the objective truth through observation. To do that, you inherently have to argue "X is true". Its accepted, generally, that an "I think..." is implied.
what I objected to was that it seemed like your statement "its accepted taht a thing is true when you have a sufficient confidence level" (paraphrased) was intentionally omitting the "I think..." portion of "a thing is true" and instead stating it as an objective truth.
That is my point. A statement is accepted as true when you have a sufficient confidence level. You could go around appending "I think" before every declarative sentence you make if you like, but I'm content to say something is true if I have a high enough confidence level.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity and boycotting overpriced singles. Sig this to join the cause for a more affordable Magic the Gathering.
Just to go back and clear up the whole reason I started this argument in the first place is this: if you want to say evolution shouldn't be called true because you don't have 100% confidence in it, then everything you call true shouldn't be called true, because you don't have 100% confidence in anything. I just realized I might have let myself get a bit sidetracked into philosophy, but whatever you consider truth to be, you have to admit that saying that we are only 99% confident (or some similarly near 100% number) in evolution is a pretty weak argument against accepting it.
Of course, I apologize for losing track of the argument and going into a philosophy debate in this thread. That is for another sub-forum.
See? Pure semantic differences.
Most people agree that "I think" or "I believe" goes in front of everything you say.
Most people agere that every conclusion comes with doubt, including things like "the sun will come up tomorrow", and "I don't live in the matrix" or even "I am sane".
People are throwing around a 99% (or some other number with lots of 9's in it) to talk about certainty of certain statements, but nobody really knows what those numbers really mean.
Is it more likely that aliens will land on earth and tell us they planted the first life here? Or is it more likely that natural selection will somehow turn out to NOT be the main driver of speciation for vertebrates?
Is there any process whereby which we could possibly bracket what those percentages are in any meaningful way?
When it comes to major scientific theories like evolution, is "the test of time" one of the decent, empiric metrics for status as "likely to be true and never retracted"? Is there any empiric way to predict what will be considered WRONG down the road?
Would an excellent philosopher in 1960 have been able to take a quick once-over on the field and say "Cold blooded dinosaurs? Clearly just theory."
Would an excellent philosopher in 1800 have been able to take a quick once-over on the field and say "Light goes in a straight line? Clearly just theory."
No matter how voluminous the evidence or how convincing the reasoning, are some things just really, really SOUND chunks of knowledge? Like MATH? Is Evolution... like MATH solid? Can we say Evolution theory is as certain as, let's say, the certainty that the traveling salesman problem is NP complete, i.e. not solvable in polynomial time?
Errr...yes? Evolution is something empirically seen/detected. On a genetics scale, you can detect changes in genomes and genomic structures. Over time, accumulation of genomic structures lead to speciation. All of the statements I have stated so far have been empirically observed. It's exactly like how we empirically observe gravity in effect, and therefore we know gravity is a fact, or that most trees are green.
Again, our explanation of the existence of evolution is the theory; that is, how evolution occurs. It's exactly the same way as there is a theory of gravity in how gravity works, or a theory on how most trees are green. This theory has always been mixed up with the fact in itself, which is why I always find arguments in here so darn confusing (I can never tell if someone's arguing for/against the fact or the theory as they mix and intermingle). When we talk about "evolution: fact or fiction", we can only be discussing the empirical evidence, and never about the theory of natural selection and genetic drift.
The issue with the theory on evolution is the same as the issue on the theory of gravity/how trees are green: by technicality we can never have a 100% convincing "truth" of the matter, but we're fairly certain that evolution is due to natural selection and genetic drift, just like how we're fairly certain on explaining gravity by relativity, or how chlorophyll reflects green light. Is it 100%? No, and it's a trait shared by all aspects of science, including physics (the "most solid" of the sciences). None of the 3 theories I've proposed are 100%, so should evolution get a "special treatment" compared to the other two?
well, yeagh. But thats not what I was arguing at any point in the side-track :). It is perfectly legit to argue that something is true, even if you only think it is true, however. The whole purpose of Scientific reasoning is to determine the objective truth through observation. To do that, you inherently have to argue "X is true". Its accepted, generally, that an "I think..." is implied.
what I objected to was that it seemed like your statement "its accepted taht a thing is true when you have a sufficient confidence level" (paraphrased) was intentionally omitting the "I think..." portion of "a thing is true" and instead stating it as an objective truth.
That is my point. A statement is accepted as true when you have a sufficient confidence level. You could go around appending "I think" before every declarative sentence you make if you like, but I'm content to say something is true if I have a high enough confidence level.
Special thanks to Maelstrom Graphics for the signature.
Check out the Robin Hood Morality Test!
I'm a 6 - a de facto atheist.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity and boycotting overpriced singles. Sig this to join the cause for a more affordable Magic the Gathering.
Most people agree that "I think" or "I believe" goes in front of everything you say.
Most people agere that every conclusion comes with doubt, including things like "the sun will come up tomorrow", and "I don't live in the matrix" or even "I am sane".
People are throwing around a 99% (or some other number with lots of 9's in it) to talk about certainty of certain statements, but nobody really knows what those numbers really mean.
Is it more likely that aliens will land on earth and tell us they planted the first life here? Or is it more likely that natural selection will somehow turn out to NOT be the main driver of speciation for vertebrates?
Is there any process whereby which we could possibly bracket what those percentages are in any meaningful way?
When it comes to major scientific theories like evolution, is "the test of time" one of the decent, empiric metrics for status as "likely to be true and never retracted"? Is there any empiric way to predict what will be considered WRONG down the road?
Would an excellent philosopher in 1960 have been able to take a quick once-over on the field and say "Cold blooded dinosaurs? Clearly just theory."
Would an excellent philosopher in 1800 have been able to take a quick once-over on the field and say "Light goes in a straight line? Clearly just theory."
No matter how voluminous the evidence or how convincing the reasoning, are some things just really, really SOUND chunks of knowledge? Like MATH? Is Evolution... like MATH solid? Can we say Evolution theory is as certain as, let's say, the certainty that the traveling salesman problem is NP complete, i.e. not solvable in polynomial time?
Again, our explanation of the existence of evolution is the theory; that is, how evolution occurs. It's exactly the same way as there is a theory of gravity in how gravity works, or a theory on how most trees are green. This theory has always been mixed up with the fact in itself, which is why I always find arguments in here so darn confusing (I can never tell if someone's arguing for/against the fact or the theory as they mix and intermingle). When we talk about "evolution: fact or fiction", we can only be discussing the empirical evidence, and never about the theory of natural selection and genetic drift.
The issue with the theory on evolution is the same as the issue on the theory of gravity/how trees are green: by technicality we can never have a 100% convincing "truth" of the matter, but we're fairly certain that evolution is due to natural selection and genetic drift, just like how we're fairly certain on explaining gravity by relativity, or how chlorophyll reflects green light. Is it 100%? No, and it's a trait shared by all aspects of science, including physics (the "most solid" of the sciences). None of the 3 theories I've proposed are 100%, so should evolution get a "special treatment" compared to the other two?
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com