I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Zosimus]

Then show us that chickenpox is caused by a virus without committing the same logical flaw that you claim evolution has.

I never said that chickenpox was caused by a virus. I said that I never rejected the theory that one specific disease might be caused by one specific microbe.

 

[Davian]

I do not reject germ theory, I merely note that germ theory remains unproven and accordingly reject demands that I prove an unproven theory by the use of logic alone.

Is semiconductor theory similarly unproven?

 

[Dizredux]

A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported by the premises conclusively. An inductive argument, in contrast, does make such a claim.

For logicians the term validity is applicable only to deductive arguments

Inductive arguments make weaker claims than those made by deductive arguments. Because their conclusions are never certain, the terms validity and invalidity do not apply to inductive arguments.

Introduction to Logic. Thirteenth Edition. Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen Copyright 1992. pp 26-28

Dizredux

 

[Zosimus]

Introduction to Logic. Thirteenth Edition. Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen Copyright 1992. pp 26-28

Dizredux

"A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported by the premises conclusively. An inductive argument, in contrast, does make such a claim."

Wow, that's profound. Unless, of course, you made a typo.

VALID AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

"ALL ARGUMENTS CAN BE CLASSIFIED INTO TWO TYPES, VALID AND INVALID. In our class even inductive arguments will be considered a sub-type of invalid arguments....

"If an argument is invalid, then it is possible for the conclusion to be false even if all the premises are true. Invalid arguments come in all sorts of flavors, and students of Logic should be aware of the many different types. One type of invalid argument is simply called a Logical Fallacy. These arguments are instances of pseudo-reasoning. The conclusion of a logical fallacy either does not depend on the truth of the premises at all (in such a case, we say the truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of the premises) or the conclusion only follows very weakly from the premises. Unfortunately for those who are lovers of reason, logical fallacies are simply everywhere and one of the major goals of this class will be learning to recognize such fallacies when they occur."

 

[Dizredux]

"A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported by the premises conclusively. An inductive argument, in contrast, does make such a claim."

Wow, that's profound. Unless, of course, you made a typo.

It was a typo

The correct sentence is "A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported by the premises conclusively. An inductive argument, in contrast, does not make such a claim."

VALID AND INVALID ARGUMENTS

"ALL ARGUMENTS CAN BE CLASSIFIED INTO TWO TYPES, VALID AND INVALID. In our class even inductive arguments will be considered a sub-type of invalid arguments....

"If an argument is invalid, then it is possible for the conclusion to be false even if all the premises are true. Invalid arguments come in all sorts of flavors, and students of Logic should be aware of the many different types. One type of invalid argument is simply called a Logical Fallacy. These arguments are instances of pseudo-reasoning. The conclusion of a logical fallacy either does not depend on the truth of the premises at all (in such a case, we say the truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of the premises) or the conclusion only follows very weakly from the premises. Unfortunately for those who are lovers of reason, logical fallacies are simply everywhere and one of the major goals of this class will be learning to recognize such fallacies when they occur."

So we compare Copi with whose book has been used by hundreds of universities to teach logic and whoever it is you cited. You did not give much information.

As I said you apparently do not know much about evolution nor basic logic.

Basically you are talking the intellectual talk but not doing the intellectual walk or as we say in Texas "All hat, no cattle" at least on the subject of the TOE.

You realize that these nihilistic games do get a bit boring especially since you are not bringing anything new or interesting to the table.

Might try a different approach is you want to stir people up.

Dizredux

 

[Queller]

Panspermia. Punctuated Equilibrium. Lamarckism.

Did you miss the second part of my post.

"what is the evidence that supports them?"

 

[Queller]

And what is the evidence that supports them? (that was the second half of the question)

Thanks. I was wondering if I imagined typing that part since he ignored it so completely.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said that chickenpox was caused by a virus. I said that I never rejected the theory that one specific disease might be caused by one specific microbe.

So what would it take for you to tentatively accept the theory that a virus causes chickenpox?

 

[Loudmouth]

So I have quoted one of the best (if not the very best) scientific philosopher of the 20th century, and you have quoted a watered down textbook used for remedial science written by an anonymous person who is neither a scientist nor involved in scientific philosophy, and you think I should be impressed?

Since you apparently only have a remedial understanding of how science is actually done, I had to find an appropriate reference.

What you can't seem to understand is that scientists decide how language is used in science. Scientists are the ones using and applying the scientific method. A theory that makes accurate predictions is said to be supported by evidence. That's how it works in science. When scientists discuss theories they do not ignore the theory that is supported by the evidence and only discuss the falsified ones.

 

[Zosimus]

It was a typo

The correct sentence is "A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported by the premises conclusively. An inductive argument, in contrast, does not make such a claim."


http://www.kslinker.com/VALID-AND-INVALID-ARGUMENTS.htmlSo we compare Copi with whose book has been used by hundreds of universities to teach logic and whoever it is you cited. You did not give much information.

As I said you apparently do not know much about evolution nor basic logic.

Basically you are talking the intellectual talk but not doing the intellectual walk or as we say in Texas "All hat, no cattle" at least on the subject of the TOE.

You realize that these nihilistic games do get a bit boring especially since you are not bringing anything new or interesting to the table.

Might try a different approach is you want to stir people up.

Dizredux

Different logicians use different terms and approaches.

All inductive arguments are invalid. That's why the word "valid" is rarely applied to inductive arguments. They are generally classified as strong or weak. That does not make them suddenly valid, nor does that exempt them from the requirement of validity.

 

[Zosimus]

Did you miss the second part of my post.

"what is the evidence that supports them?"

Evidence is irrelevant because evidence cannot support a scientific theory.

 

[Zosimus]

So what would it take for you to tentatively accept the theory that a virus causes chickenpox?

If chickenpox were able to pass Koch's postulates of germ theory, then I would say that chickenpox had passed the standard test required. As far as I am aware, however, chickenpox has not done so.

Edit: See http://books.google.com.pe/books?id...epage&q=chicken pox koch's postulates&f=false

 

[DerelictJunction]

Evidence is irrelevant because evidence cannot support a scientific theory.

Then what does evidence support? What is the point of getting evidence?

Is evidence irrelevant in support of a case against a criminal?

 

[Delphiki]

Evidence is irrelevant because evidence cannot support a scientific theory.

Wow.

 

[Zosimus]

Then what does evidence support? What is the point of getting evidence?

Is evidence irrelevant in support of a case against a criminal?

The point of evidence is that when you have two theories, one of which predicts A, while the other predicts B, then a proper test can eliminate one or the other of the theories from consideration. It does not, however, indicate that the theory that has been corroborated is correct.

In the case of a criminal cases, there are two types of evidence that are used. They are classified as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. If, for example, a man witnessed a murder and picked the murderer out of a line-up, then that is direct evidence and is conclusive on its own.

On the other hand, there is circumstantial evidence. One example might be fingerprints on the toilet handle in a murdered victim's house that are believed to match the fingerprints of a suspect. As I have already pointed out, fingerprint evidence is usually quite unreliable, but for the sake of argument let's say that fingerprint evidence could be elevated to a science and the expert was able to say that the print matched the suspect's print in 17 points and that there are only, statistically speaking, 2 other people in a city the size of Los Angeles who would have a 17-point match with the fingerprint in question.

Even so this information is not conclusive in itself. If the suspect denied going into the victim's house at any point in the past, that would raise the suspicion that the suspect is lying and therefore has something to hide. If, however, the suspect merely remained silent and let his lawyer do the talking, then the print would not be enough evidence to determine that the person was guilty of the crime. There are many possible explanations for prints on a toilet handle in someone's house.

 

[Delphiki]

A scientific theory is an explanation of evidence and test results. To say that evidence doesn't support a theory shows a brazen cluelessness regarding the very definition of a scientific theory.

 

[Split Rock]

Great, so you theorize that all species share a common ancestor.
If that is so, then there should be a pattern of shared traits that are mirrored by shared similarities at the genetic level.
You have found (to one extent or another) a pattern of shared traits.
Therefore you think the theory has been confirmed. In reality, however, you have merely engaged in a logical fallacy.

We do not prove anything in science. As we say, proof is for alcohol and mathematics. I would say that the theory of evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, however. This is the same standard applied to our justice system. Logical proofs, as I have repeatedly pointed out, do not help us answer questions about the natural world around us, like "what is the explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth?" Therefore, logical fallacies, are irrelevant. If we waited for absolute proof of anything we would get no where... and you wouldn't be using a computer right now.

Now that doesn't mean the conclusion couldn't be true. It simply means that the argument you have made is not compelling. Therefore, until such time as you or someone else comes up with a better argument for common ancestry, I shall remain agnostic, but I will object strenuously to anyone who claims that it has been proved, is obvious, is beyond a doubt, or insults me for entertaining reasonable doubts.

The scientific community does find the theory of evolution compelling, even if you do not. As I said above, the theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion. Nothing in science is proven, or beyond any doubt, of course. I will also say that though it is possible, it is highly unlikely that common descent will be falsified in the future. The evidence is just too strong.

 

[Zosimus]

Wow.

When I was younger and lived in Los Angeles, I had the hots for this blonde girl who was Buddhist. I went with her to her Buddhist meetings (Nichirin Shoshu of America). The entire crowd chanted "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo" for awhile and then took out the Gohonzon, which is some sort of sacred object to Buddhists. Then they chanted to that for awhile and afterwards they engaged in something they called "witnessing."

People who had recently started chanting or had been chanting for awhile would relate stories. For example someone might say, "I started chanting a month ago and now I have a new, better job and a better relationship with my parents."

There was never a meeting at which substantial evidence "in support of" the theory that chanting improved one's life was not presented. Yet I never chanted, nor joined the Buddhist organization. I was not convinced by the so-called "evidence" at any point.

Do you consider that the evidence presented supported the theory? If not, then why not?

 

[Split Rock]

If chickenpox were able to pass Koch's postulates of germ theory, then I would say that chickenpox had passed the standard test required. As far as I am aware, however, chickenpox has not done so.

Edit: See Public Health 101 - Professor of Epidemiology-Biostatistics Medicine and Health Policy and Founding Dean the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services Washington Washington D C Richard Riegelman, Richard Riegelman, Bren

Does satisfying Koch's postulates constitute a logical proof, or a logical fallacy?

 

[Delphiki]

When I was younger and lived in Los Angeles, I had the hots for this blonde girl who was Buddhist. I went with her to her Buddhist meetings (Nichirin Shoshu of America). The entire crowd chanted "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo" for awhile and then took out the Gohonzon, which is some sort of sacred object to Buddhists. Then they chanted to that for awhile and afterwards they engaged in something they called "witnessing."

People who had recently started chanting or had been chanting for awhile would relate stories. For example someone might say, "I started chanting a month ago and now I have a new, better job and a better relationship with my parents."

There was never a meeting at which substantial evidence "in support of" the theory that chanting improved one's life was not presented. Yet I never chanted, nor joined the Buddhist organization. I was not convinced by the so-called "evidence" at any point.

Do you consider that the evidence presented supported the theory? If not, then why not?

You are talking about a theory in the colloquial sense, not a scientific theory.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory