Would the promotion of the First Absolute Law of Logic help establish the concept of God?

[o_mlly]

To repeat, the reasoning is that it's what the data very clearly indicates. That's how science works.

Uh huh.

What "rational skepticism" are you referring to?

Do you not have a search engine on your device?

 

[River Jordan]

Uh huh.

Indeed.

Do you not have a search engine on your device?

So you don't have any examples. Okay then.

 

[o_mlly]

So you don't have any examples. Okay then.

If you really were a scientist then you would know. ???

 

[Niels]

Perhaps, but they may twist your definitions to mean something you didn't intend. I don't mean simply misunderstand, but distort. Whether intentionally or unintentionally.

If you can help them recite your definitions back to you in a way that is acceptable to you, and you can recite their definitions back to them in a way that's acceptable to them, then I say that's a win all around.

It's unlikely that you will win minds with logic alone. If the logic is sound, the facts are correct, and you are able to communicate your point in a way that's clear enough that the other person can repeat it back to you in an acceptable manner, even if they disagree you will be off to a great start. I've watched debates and read books where none of this happened on either side. Which is unfortunate. Best of luck.

 

[River Jordan]

If you really were a scientist then you would know. ???

You made the claim. If you can't post any examples then there's nothing to discuss.

 

[o_mlly]

You made the claim. If you can't post any examples then there's nothing to discuss.

Nope, no claim made requiring examples.

If you do not know what rational skepticism is then you're not really a scientist, right?

But the bold and underlined typeface? Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. So I'll assume this whiny-like childish response may only be the result of a present cytokine storm.

 

[River Jordan]

Nope, no claim made requiring examples.

Which means there's nothing to discuss.

If you do not know what rational skepticism is then you're not really a scientist, right?

But the bold and underlined typeface? Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. So I'll assume this whiny-like childish response may only be the result of a present cytokine storm.

Grow up please.

 

[o_mlly]

Science is based on logic and presupposes its use as a fundamental method of reasoning.

The necessary and foundational premise for evolution theory is an agreed upon single objective definition of what constitutes a "species concept". There is not one. Without such a constraining premise, the "science" has no criteria and so no rational means to limit the number of discovered "species".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The necessary and foundational premise for evolution theory is an agreed upon single objective definition of what constitutes a "species concept". There is not one. Without such a constraining premise, the "science" has no criteria and so no rational means to limit the number of discovered "species".

Actually, the scientific theory of evolution emerges from several separate lines of evidence. One doesn't start with 'evolution' and then go looking for evidence to support it. Rather, evolution is the conclusion drawn AFTER looking at the several lines of evidence.

And I would say that within science, 'species' is conceptually an a posteriori evaluation rather than an a priori assumption.

What is a Species? Definition, Evolution, and Biological Meaning Explained

From the towering giraffes of the African savannah to the microscopic bacteria thriving in boiling hot springs, the vast variety…

www.sciencenewstoday.org

 

[sfs]

The necessary and foundational premise for evolution theory is an agreed upon single objective definition of what constitutes a "species concept".

That's not even remotely true. Evolutionary theory would do just fine if we had no definition of species at all. The evidence would still be overwhelming that living things have changed over time and that the change has occurred through random mutation filtered through natural selection.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually, the scientific theory of evolution emerges from several separate lines of evidence. One doesn't start with 'evolution' and then go looking for evidence to support it. Rather, evolution is the conclusion drawn AFTER looking at the several lines of evidence.

And I would say that within science, 'species' is conceptually an a posteriori evaluation rather than an a priori assumption.

What is a Species? Definition, Evolution, and Biological Meaning Explained

From the towering giraffes of the African savannah to the microscopic bacteria thriving in boiling hot springs, the vast variety…

www.sciencenewstoday.org

? Your cited article agrees with my post.

As to the scientific method, the process begins with a working hypothesis (a priori). The definition of terms in the hypothesis allows the gathering of evidence that supports or refutes the hypothesis. The hypothesis becomes a theory (a posteriori) when it is repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiments and observations, demonstrating its validity and reliability. If the definition of what is being asserted and tested is vague then so is the evidence.

Species concept and speciation - PMC

Defining and recognizing a species has been a controversial issue for a long time. To determine the variation and the limitation between species, many concepts have been proposed. When a taxonomist study a particular taxa, he/she must adopted a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The application of species criteria in avian taxonomy and its implications for the debate over species concepts - PubMed

The debate over species concepts has produced a huge body of literature on how species can, may or should be delimited. By contrast, very few studies have documented how species taxa are delimited in practice. The aims of the present study were to (i) quantify the use of species criteria in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Species Concepts: What about Ticks? - PubMed

Since ancient times, philosophers and taxonomists have tried to classify forms of life. This is what taxonomy is about: the science of identifying, naming, classifying, and describing organisms. In this article I address the issue of the species concept in tick taxonomy. While the typological...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Species concepts should not conflict with evolutionary history, but often do - PubMed

Many phylogenetic systematists have criticized the Biological Species Concept (BSC) because it distorts evolutionary history. While defences against this particular criticism have been attempted, I argue that these responses are unsuccessful. In addition, I argue that the source of this problem...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[Is a unified concept of species in ornithology possible? (An opinion of a practicing taxonomist)] - PubMed

An analysis of current publications on species problem reveals the radical discrepancy between the statements of species reality in nature and different number of these "realities" in light of different species concepts. It has been shown, that the only realities are populations, and "species"...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Species" are invented, not discovered.

Evolutionary theory would do just fine if we had no definition of species at all. The evidence would still be overwhelming that living things have changed over time and that the change has occurred through random mutation filtered through natural selection.

No one argues the micro-evolution theory.

 

[River Jordan]

The necessary and foundational premise for evolution theory is an agreed upon single objective definition of what constitutes a "species concept".

That's just wrong. The foundation for evolutionary theory is that populations change over time, and the theory seeks to explain how that happens.

No one argues the micro-evolution theory.

There is no such thing as "the micro-evolution theory".

Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

 

[o_mlly]

The foundation for evolutionary theory is that populations change over time, and the theory seeks to explain how that happens.

Nonsense. The "Origin of Populations" was not the seminal work that launched this project.

There is no such thing as "the micro-evolution theory".

As expected. Rather than address the argument, deny that there is even a problem at all and call the other guy stupid. Turn in you lab coat (if you really have one.)

 

[River Jordan]

Nonsense. The "Origin of Populations" was not the seminal work that launched this project.

To repeat, you're just wrong. The core foundational concept of evolutionary theory is that populations change over time. What made Darwin's seminal work so significant was that he identified a mechanism by which populations change (natural selection). Later work identified how novelty arises and is inherited (mutation). Had Darwin titled his book "On the Origin of Distinct Populations" the foundational concept that populations change over time would remain.

It's no different than how the foundational concept behind the germ theory of disease is that germs cause disease, with the theory seeking to explain how they do so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

? Your cited article agrees with my post.

As to the scientific method, the process begins with a working hypothesis (a priori). The definition of terms in the hypothesis allows the gathering of evidence that supports or refutes the hypothesis. The hypothesis becomes a theory (a posteriori) when it is repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiments and observations, demonstrating its validity and reliability. If the definition of what is being asserted and tested is vague then so is the evidence.

Species concept and speciation - PMC

Defining and recognizing a species has been a controversial issue for a long time. To determine the variation and the limitation between species, many concepts have been proposed. When a taxonomist study a particular taxa, he/she must adopted a ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The application of species criteria in avian taxonomy and its implications for the debate over species concepts - PubMed

The debate over species concepts has produced a huge body of literature on how species can, may or should be delimited. By contrast, very few studies have documented how species taxa are delimited in practice. The aims of the present study were to (i) quantify the use of species criteria in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Species Concepts: What about Ticks? - PubMed

Since ancient times, philosophers and taxonomists have tried to classify forms of life. This is what taxonomy is about: the science of identifying, naming, classifying, and describing organisms. In this article I address the issue of the species concept in tick taxonomy. While the typological...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Species concepts should not conflict with evolutionary history, but often do - PubMed

Many phylogenetic systematists have criticized the Biological Species Concept (BSC) because it distorts evolutionary history. While defences against this particular criticism have been attempted, I argue that these responses are unsuccessful. In addition, I argue that the source of this problem...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[Is a unified concept of species in ornithology possible? (An opinion of a practicing taxonomist)] - PubMed

An analysis of current publications on species problem reveals the radical discrepancy between the statements of species reality in nature and different number of these "realities" in light of different species concepts. It has been shown, that the only realities are populations, and "species"...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Species" are invented, not discovered.

No one argues the micro-evolution theory.

That's fine if you want to think that. That reason I say this is "fine" is because my generalist view of evolution isn't one I subscribe to for the purpose of shoving the Bible to the side. Rather, it's my default conceptual position and represents how, so far, I view the long term physical nature of the world. .......... I could be wrong though.

Unfortunately, being that I'm a philosopher who likes to study the Philosophy of Science, the Nature of Science and the History of Science, I look at the historical development of working terms as they are defined, adopted and then used through time. So, we'll probably end up talking passed each other here on this point, particularly since I don't really see anything in your line up of articles undermining my position.

For the record, I do not hold that an Hypothesis is equivalent semantically to an Axiom. A hypothesis may be a starting point for a scientific test, but this being the case does not make it axiomatic in its essential properties.

hypothesis ≠ axiom​

This is one reason why scientists, even such as Darwin and Wallace, proposed that when we commence scientific study, we only consider scientific 'truths' as provisional in nature rather than as absolute. These 'truths' can be revised as new findings, new observations and new evidences become available and are brought into the dynamic, analytic cycle of evaluation.

In my view, it would be more accurate to say that biological states among populations of organisms are discovered, but our terms of classification for these discovered states are invented and/or modified as we gain more data/information.

 

[sfs]

"Species" are invented, not discovered.

The division into particular named groups is a human invention. That cows are different from kumquats is observation about reality. Whether we gave them names or not, the would still be related by descent from a common ancestor -- that's what the evidence says, and that has nothing to do with what we call them.

No one argues the micro-evolution theory.

If you want to include the evolution of cows and kumquats from their common ancestor as part of microevolution, great.

 

[o_mlly]

That's fine if you want to think that.

? The scientific method is not one of personal preference.

That reason I say this is "fine" is because my generalist view of evolution isn't one I subscribe to for the purpose of shoving the Bible to the side.

? The Bible is not an issue in this thread.

For the record, I do not hold that an Hypothesis is equivalent semantically to an Axiom.

Still not an issue being debated.

This is one reason why scientists, even such as Darwin and Wallace, proposed that when we commence scientific study, we only consider scientific 'truths' as provisional in nature rather than as absolute. These 'truths' can be revised as new findings, new observations and new evidences become available and are brought into the dynamic, analytic cycle of evaluation.

No issue on the limitations of science. See post #131 in the thread "Evolution conflict and division".

In my view, it would be more accurate to say that biological states among populations of organisms are discovered, but our terms of classification for these discovered states are invented and/or modified as we gain more data/information.

If you mean that the ontological states among populations are ... well, real. But the human mind can only grasp that reality "through a glass, darkly" then we agree.

The division into particular named groups is a human invention

Good.

That cows are different from kumquats is observation about reality.

Still good.

Whether we gave them names or not, the would still be related by descent from a common ancestor ...

Not good. Does not follow logically. Begs the question.

​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

? The scientific method is not one of personal preference.

Which scientific method? Conceptually and practically, there really isn't "exactly" a singular scientific method. What you're referring to is a very general, thumb nail heuristic that serves as the usual 'to go.'

The Bible is not an issue in this thread.

By proxy, it is, because it is a source of 'creationist' thinking.

Still not an issue being debated.

Being that all terms are subject to analytic and semantic analysis, denotations and connotations, along with the supposed referents they signify, are always a part of the discussion where creation and evolution, and the supposed 'functions' of these respective concepts, are on stage.

No issue on the limitations of science. See post #131 in the thread "Evolution conflict and division".

If you mean that the ontological states among populations are ... well, real. But the human mind can only grasp that reality "through a glass, darkly" then we agree.

Yes, to an extent.

Anyway, we can stop here. I'm going to continue to rely on all of the sources I've gained my information and education from for the last 40 years. I'm sure you're wanting to do the same with your own sources.

Peace.

 

[o_mlly]

Which scientific method? Conceptually and practically, there really isn't "exactly" a singular scientific method. What you're referring to is a very general, thumb nail heuristic that serves as the usual 'to go.'

Which step(s) of the method I offered are in dispute? Of course, there may be more rigorous methods proposed but I am being as generous as possible to evolution theory.

By proxy, it is, because it is a source of 'creationist' thinking.

Exactly how do you define "'creationist' thinking'"? Would Aristotle be a "creationist"?

Being that all terms are subject to analytic and semantic analysis, denotations and connotations, along with the supposed referents they signify, are always a part of the discussion where creation and evolution, and the supposed 'functions' of these respective concepts, are on stage.

? Again, I'm not arguing as a "creationist".

Yes, to an extent.

Anyway, we can stop here. I'm going to continue to rely on all of the sources I've gained my information and education from for the last 40 years. I'm sure you're wanting to do the same with your own sources.

Peace.

Me. too. Peace.

 

[sfs]

Not good. Does not follow logically. Begs the question.

I don't understand this as a response. I wasn't making a logical argument, so there's no logic to follow -- I was making a claim about the evidence.

To back up a bit: your argument was that a consistent definition of 'species' was a necessary premise for evolutionary theory. That doesn't follow logically for multiple reasons. A definition can't be a premise, evolutionary theory isn't a logical argument based on premises, and, most importantly, species are simply not central to our understanding of evolution.

Look, all of these attempts at logical refutations of evolution are pretty pointless -- the supposedly self-evident logical principles you bring up are so nebulous as to be useless for determining anything about how physical reality operates, and nothing in them seems to have any bearing on whether evolution is an accurate description of reality or not.

If you'd like to discuss the evidence that convinces biologists that common descent is true, I'd be happy to do so -- are you interested at all in that evidence?