Yes, a situation where "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" turned out to be wrong.
Upvote
0
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.
Yes, a situation where "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" turned out to be wrong.Not only that but nobody really suspected a deliberate forgery. Those who skeptical assumed it was just a case of mixing up bones from different species.
Not so surprising, the same laws of information transmission apply in all lossy communication channels, Claude Shannon demonstrated that.
Clearly(!) not - a certain level of noise or lossiness in the information transmission between generations in evolutionary systems provides the population variation that selection can act on. Perfect transmission would be a selective disadvantage in comparison.
We've developed commercial systems to imitate the natural process because it works and it's effective.
I would suspect that was the case for many who were fooled, and the likelihood of that response was the motivation for the fraud. Confirmation of hypotheses is important in the progress of science, and science is a human undertaking. Every now and then a fraud or hoax serves as a reminder that credence should be balanced with healthy skepticism.it was accepted, I would submit to you, because even if it looked a bit dodgy to many from the start- any sort of 'missing link' was the 'smoking gun' that was being very eagerly sought at the time- clearly of massive value to those looking to establish Darwinian theory as proven, so there was a strong incentive to assume it was genuine until proven otherwise (some 40 years later)
Well, no, that's not the case. The former was an apparent discovery that was expected, a major piece in an existing jigsaw. The latter was a paradigm shift; the existing body of knowledge is hard-won, so the bar for overturning it is rightly set high - in that respect, science is very conservative. Thomas Kuhn gave a good (if, perhaps, exaggerated) description in 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.As before we saw the exact opposite in the case of the Primeval Atom/ Big Bang, which ran counter to the prevailing theory of a static universe- and so was assumed 'wrong' until proven correct (beyond most people's doubt at least) many decades later also.
Objectively, there was absolutely no reason for the burden of proof to be reversed like this.
That is a Xianghua level non-sequitur. The mere fact that error correction is involved in both processes implies no other connection.well- arguably we discovered DNA uses the same error detection software strategies as we do, after we designed them ourselves
and that system is one pretty good argument in itself for ID being required
Quite; they are completely different applications. But when we want to produce products without explicit human design input, we find an evolutionary model with random variation does the job very effectively - in that context, the random changes are neither errors nor useless.but we use them to eliminate useless random errors as efficiently as possible, not to author new software packages with!
I would suspect that was the case for many who were fooled, and the likelihood of that response was the motivation for the fraud. Confirmation of hypotheses is important in the progress of science, and science is a human undertaking. Every now and then a fraud or hoax serves as a reminder that credence should be balanced with healthy skepticism.
Well, no, that's not the case. The former was an apparent discovery that was expected, a major piece in an existing jigsaw. The latter was a paradigm shift; the existing body of knowledge is hard-won, so the bar for overturning it is rightly set high - in that respect, science is very conservative. Thomas Kuhn gave a good (if, perhaps, exaggerated) description in 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.
Yes, evolution is a fact. There are species alive on the Earth which haven't always been here and species which have existed but do no longer. Evolution s a fact and Special Creation is not. The theory of evolution, however, remains a theory.amen!
I'm glad we agree, there is always room for an expected twist in the tale- even from once declared 'immutable laws' unfortunately not all influential scientists agree with us on this:
“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact." Dawkins
And naturally you want to draw a parallel between that little fable and the rejection of the hoax of ID. Of course then you will have to come up with some self-serving explanation as to why so many theists reject ID--which in real life is because ID is not only bad science, it's bad theology as well.yes, & as Planck noted -that's why 'science progresses one funeral at a time'
And this is really the same point I was making; what carries a 'desired' implication v an 'undesired implication' for whatever reason, should not matter- certainly not preclude something from consideration entirely! If anything the opposite should be embraced if we really want to adhere to an objective scientific method- don't you think?
only, this was not merely a 'paradigm shift' but an ideological shift away from materialistic and towards theistic implications- that was the explicit reason for rejecting the theory according to Hoyle himself who coined the pejorative and less descriptive label for the Primeval Atom: 'Big Bang'
That is a Xianghua level non-sequitur. The mere fact that error correction is involved in both processes implies no other connection.
Quite; they are completely different applications.
I'm in favour of adhering to the scientific method as closely as possible, but having worked in science, I'm familiar with, and realistic about, the practical pressures, complications, and distractions that influence real-world science.... what carries a 'desired' implication v an 'undesired implication' for whatever reason, should not matter- certainly not preclude something from consideration entirely! If anything the opposite should be embraced if we really want to adhere to an objective scientific method- don't you think?
Not sure what you're saying here - the primeval atom may have been proposed by a priest, Lemaître, but he did so as a result of deriving Freidmann's equations and from them and Hubble's observations, deriving the Hubble–Lemaître law - an expanding universe was inevitable, and, consequently, the 'primeval atom'. When Pius XII announced it as a confirmation of Catholic doctrine, Lemaître objected....this was not merely a 'paradigm shift' but an ideological shift away from materialistic and towards theistic implications- that was the explicit reason for rejecting the theory according to Hoyle himself who coined the pejorative and less descriptive label for the Primeval Atom: 'Big Bang'
Fortunately, evolution doesn't work by 'throwing random numbers around'.The point is not just that this is an astoundingly elegant and impressive design to those programmers among us, but a far more mathematically objective one: that if you tried to accidentally reproduce this system by throwing random numbers around.... there have not been enough individual organisms multiplied by nanoseconds the universe has existed, multiplied by elementary particles, to give you nearly enough tries for a probable chance of success...
I'm in favour of adhering to the scientific method as closely as possible, but having worked in science, I'm familiar with, and realistic about, the practical pressures, complications, and distractions that influence real-world science.
Not sure what you're saying here - the primeval atom may have been proposed by a priest, Lemaître, but he did so as a result of deriving Freidmann's equations and from them and Hubble's observations, deriving the Hubble–Lemaître law - an expanding universe was inevitable, and, consequently, the 'primeval atom'. When Pius XII announced it as a confirmation of Catholic doctrine, Lemaître objected.
I don't think many in the scientific community saw it as a theistic idea, beyond the obvious problem of accounting for the origin of the big bang. It certainly wasn't an ideological shift of the kind you suggest.
Fortunately, evolution doesn't work by 'throwing random numbers around'.
How long are you going to beat that straw man?Frumious, we're talking about a core feature of DNA itself that is required for evolution to function at all...
but aside from that, no I don't think evolution relies on pure blind luck- that would not work
Only Darwin's theory of it requires that, that is it's singular defining characteristic
Lol! I don't think you'll find many atheists like Hoyle - a great astronomer, but a stubborn, opinionated maverick.The theistic implications, and hence bias, were entirely from atehists like Hoyle
Few people are happy when the theoretical system they've put so much work into is upended. But 'several' isn't 'many', and, as I said, Hoyle was a maverick, not part of the mainstream; but a good publicist and he attracted a small coterie of admirers.In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[57] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"
Yes, and...? Do I detect an argument from incredulity in the offing?Frumious, we're talking about a core feature of DNA itself that is required for evolution to function at all...
This misrepresentation has already been explained. Repeating it won't make it less wrong. To help you remember, you could try picturing the full title of his seminal book.no I don't think evolution relies on pure blind luck- that would not work
Only Darwin's theory of it requires that, that is it's singular defining characteristic
well- arguably we discovered DNA uses the same error detection software strategies as we do, after we designed them ourselves
and that system is one pretty good argument in itself for ID being required
but we use them to eliminate useless random errors as efficiently as possible, not to author new software packages with!
To correct the idea that merely 'error checking' is where the similarities end here..
when I say 'same' I should say- similar yet far more sophisticated in DNA:
Our common problem with digital transcription errors is this:
& it is specific to digital v analogue signals
how does a digital device know whether the info being received is corrupted or not? without knowing what it should be? without any reference, it's all just ones and zeros- right?
so parity bit error checking involves adding up sequences of 1s and 0s, recording whether the result is merely odd or even- then the receiving system can perform the same check and compare results
Over the course of several checks it become increasingly apparent if the signal has errors
Well DNA of course uses a double stream of quaternary (base 4) code in the double helix as opposed to a single binary (base 2) correct?- so that would complicate the technique-
except the possible combinations of nucleotides represent an interwoven binary code within the 2 quaternary streams
i.e. a single binary stream is used to perform a parity but error checking system- operating on 2 distinct streams of quaternary code independently yet simultaneously
The point is not just that this is an astoundingly elegant and impressive design to those programmers among us, but a far more mathematically objective one: that if you tried to accidentally reproduce this system by throwing random numbers around.... there have not been enough individual organisms multiplied by nanoseconds the universe has existed, multiplied by elementary particles, to give you nearly enough tries for a probable chance of success
That leaves us with either an infinite probability machine, i.e. multiverse to explain such things
or a far more demonstrable mechanism, which has recently proven itself to be capable of doing this without the need for infinite trial and error- simply creative intelligence.
sorry for long post, difficult to condense..!
Lol! I don't think you'll find many atheists like Hoyle - a great astronomer, but a stubborn, opinionated maverick.
Few people are happy when the theoretical system they've put so much work into is upended. But 'several' isn't 'many', and, as I said, Hoyle was a maverick, not part of the mainstream; but a good publicist and he attracted a small coterie of admirers.
However, I don't know exactly what the numbers were; it wouldn't surprise me if a majority didn't want theological distractions.
'several' blatantly and outwardly complained about the theory not conforming with their atheist beliefs, i.e. did not even attempt a facade of being impartial in this regard- that's not to say others didn't have a similar opinion- the tendency among academics towards atheism, v everyone else, is hardly a controversial observation!
And actually he was pretty moderate compared to Eddington- who explicitly called the entire concept of a beginning 'repugnant'. 'repugnance' is not a terribly objective scientific measure of truth!
That would be the point, the majority preferred atheistic/materialistic implications. Lemaitre certainly had to put up with plenty 'atheistic/materialist distractions' but still went out of his way to take the scientific high road, to disassociate his theory with personal beliefs- even telling the Pope to knock it off with all the gloating!
Isn't that how a scientist should operate? But it is the exception rather than the rule unfortunately- and this example of atheism v science is not an isolated one
I don't think it is exactly a coincidence that Planck was a noted skeptic of atheism either..
Nevertheless, the data behind big bang model was accepted, and you won't find any mainstream cosmologists who don't accept it.'several' blatantly and outwardly complained about the theory not conforming with their atheist beliefs, i.e. did not even attempt a facade of being impartial in this regard- that's not to say others didn't have a similar opinion- the tendency among academics towards atheism, v everyone else, is hardly a controversial observation!
And actually he was pretty moderate compared to Eddington- who explicitly called the entire concept of a beginning 'repugnant'. 'repugnance' is not a terribly objective scientific measure of truth!
Once again, your example does not support your argument that we refuse to consider competing theories. Structure it as an hypothesis, to include tests which may falsify it, along with actually explaining the data, and rigorously defining it, like was done with the big bang...and it will be considered.
As it stands now it makes no attempt to explain the data. It is almost entirely based on incredulity of evolution.
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?