Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's an interesting point of view – that problems with p-values, bias in researchers, and problems with multiple groups investigating the same questions cause problems with false positives is something that ONLY occurs within biomedical research.
Evolutionary research, I suppose, never uses p-values.
Consensus may also indicate that it is tentatively accepted as the most ideologically preferable explanation and/or the most potentially lucrative model available. Actual scientific merit may only be of secondary or tertiary consideration.
Well, that would have been an interesting point of view if anyone had advanced it. As it is, you're not arguing with anyone. You quoted the paper saying that most fields of have this problem. I pointed out (correctly) that by "most fields" he means most fields in biomedical research. Why you then invented a strawman to attack I don't know. I also don't know how well evolutionary biology does in terms of rigor. No one knows until they do some research on the subject. But of course, you don't think research leads to knowledge, so what would be the point?That's an interesting point of view – that problems with p-values, bias in researchers, and problems with multiple groups investigating the same questions cause problems with false positives is something that ONLY occurs within biomedical research.
Evolutionary research, I suppose, never uses p-values. There is no bias of any kind among evolutionary biologists. There are never multiple teams investigating the same question.
Good to know!
Exactly. I'm not going to engage in a philosophical argument with you about whether we can know anything beyond what we can directly observe. Some scientific research is bad and some of it is good, regardless of whether you are an instrumentalist or a realist. Some leads to useful conclusions, again regardless of your philosophical take. The philosophical issue is a red herring.Good reasons that you don't bother to elaborate on.
You didn't post your doubts. You posted a statement about evolution that reflected confusion about the meaning of the word "theory". That was what someone responded to, because all we can respond to are the words you actually write.Oh, excuse my ignorance, thank you for solving my doubts.
Despite what you may believe, listing hypothetical behavior by imaginary scientists is also not an argument.Despite what you may believe, listing anatomical traits is not an argument.
That's what you understood, but let me state what I posted or not, since I know betterYou didn't post your doubts. You posted a statement about evolution that reflected confusion about the meaning of the word "theory". That was what someone responded to, because all we can respond to are the words you actually write.
I pretty much got the same impression that sfs did. There is a huge difference between that of a common layman's theory definition and that of a scientific theory; for example, "gravitation" is just a theory.That's what you understood, but let me state what I posted or not, since I know better
Neither is that blatant strawman.
Despite what you may believe, listing anatomical traits is not an argument.
It's about understanding the meaning of the word in science. Evolution is the only theory in science that gets this treatment. There's no large contingent of people saying that germ disease is "just a theory". Displaying it next to these other theories helps illustrate the point.
By comparison, evolution makes testable predictions based on naturalistic mechanisms. Darwin's phylogeny, for example, was tested in its entirety when the field of genetics was discovered, and it turned out to be remarkably stable, with the morphological nested heirarchy being almost completely concordant with the genetic nested heirarchy.
We expected to find, on the basis of morphology, various fossils, which we found not only in the location predicted, but with the qualities predicted. Every time a new genome is sequenced or a new fossil is dug up, the theory opens itself up to potentially be falsified - if the fossil cannot be fit into the phylogeny or it's in the wrong strata
(see also: fossil bunnies in Cambrian strata and their complete lack of existence),
or the genome shows genetics which cannot be matched to any existing phyla, there's a problem.
That's not true. The fossil can be at least tens of "millions of years" out of sequence and still be accommodated. Discordant morphology can also be rescued by assuming convergences. Morphological and molecular predictions can fail on a regular basis and not put a dent in the theory.
It seems that your evolutionary high priests have convinced you that any potential falsification automatically means that your theory is ironclad. This is very poor reasoning indeed.
Actually...As an author of a paper, you don't get to pick and choose who will review it.
Germ disease is just a theory.It's about understanding the meaning of the word in science. Evolution is the only theory in science that gets this treatment. There's no large contingent of people saying that germ disease is "just a theory".
Actually...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747
If you do it right, you can peer-review your own paper.
Germ disease is just a theory.
In fact, there was a very rigorous test proposed to determine whether the theory was true. The test is called Koch's postulates, which are as follows:
Yet a simple look at the literature of most diseases shows that it's easy to find asymptomatic carriers of cholera, typhoid fever, the HIV virus, polio, herpes, hepatitis, etc.
- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
- The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
- The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
Yet we don't run around railing at the term theory because, after all...
It's only a theory.
Considering that the article in question complained that "...the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05. Research is not most appropriately represented and summarized by p-values, but, unfortunately, there is a widespread notion that [scientific studies] should be interpreted based only on p-values."It happens whenever you analyze large, complex data sets in any field, from physics to economics to biology.
Statistics is a basic feature of phylogenetics and evolutionary research.
http://statweb.stanford.edu/~susan/papers/chapihp04.pdf
Germ disease is just a theory.
In fact, there was a very rigorous test proposed to determine whether the theory was true. The test is called Koch's postulates, which are as follows:
Yet a simple look at the literature of most diseases shows that it's easy to find asymptomatic carriers of cholera, typhoid fever, the HIV virus, polio, herpes, hepatitis, etc.
- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
- The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
- The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
Yet we don't run around railing at the term theory because, after all...
It's only a theory.
Considering that the article in question complained that "...the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05. Research is not most appropriately represented and summarized by p-values, but, unfortunately, there is a widespread notion that [scientific studies] should be interpreted based only on p-values."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?