UCA doesn't contradict scripture any more than psalm 139 contradicts obstetrics.
I disagree.
OK, then why do you not accept the idea that God knitted us together in our wombs, as the text literally reads?
Then I guess I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between "official" and "doctrine".
How about this attempt at it? Approved statements of position made by the church are "Official". "Doctrine" needs to be present in a creed.
OK, then what is your point regarding popper? As I've pointed out, UCA is very falisifiable - a good example of a proper scientific idea.
As I said, I referenced Popper as part of defining what a falsification test is. I haven't seen anything that rises to that level other than Theobald. As I said, every test attempts to answer a question, but not every test aims at falsifying each of the underlying theories.
The papers you listed did not purport a falsification test for UCA.
Um, yes they did. Finding significant mismatch between phylogenic trees would certainly be evidence against UCA. Finding fossils that don't fit the phylogenic tree or established histories would certainly be evidence against UCA. And so on with most of the peices of evidence in 29+ and the papers I listed.
When I run a test to determine the break away force of a clutch, I am not simultaneously running a falsification test on every theory of mechanics. That is a well-established feature of falsification tests that has been discussed in the literature.
Well, sure. I think we agree that your break away force test is much more limited.
Originally Posted by
Papias
Brase and Brase "Understanding Basic Statistics ", 6th edition, Cengage learning, 2012, pg. 187
I don't have access to this book. I checked on Google Books and it appears this chapter deals with probability. Combining probabilities deals with independent events, not independent types of evidence that lead to the same conclusion.
You can treat them as independant events because if one were to think that their methods are wrong, then they give random answers, and thus their conclusions are independent.
Regardless, I think the formula you quoted for combining probabilities is wrong. Check this reference:
Combining Probabilities
If something like the above were claimed to apply to independent types of evidence that produce the same result, I think it would be difficult to establish the independence of the sets of evidence as Brower notes.
Because your page linked to is not applicable. In the case given above, it is indeterminate because the data set is limited to the problem posed, not to a continually expanding data set, point after point of which supports the same conclusion.
Originally Posted by
Papias
How could that be a loaded question?
Well, I assume that things like QM and rleativity replacing Newtonian mechanics isn't a sufficient example for you, so I would need a rigorous definition of how you're quantifying evidence in order to know what examples you might accept.
Well, perhaps your example above points to a larger question, and that is whether or not QM proved newtonian physics "wrong", or if QM was an adjustment which still affirmed newtonian physics correct in a subset of conditions. Which of those two do you see as the case?
Originally Posted by
Papias
I did, and you are confusing two things.
Other biologists have called it extrapolation as well - Mayr and some others that I'm forgetting at the moment. But I expect you'll claim those examples are limited as well.
I explained three reasons why you were confusing two things. If you have a statement (in context) from Mayr or anyone else, please present it. It's not that the examples are "limited" - it's that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what "extrapolation" is, vs. what "independent confirmation by additonal lines of evidence" is.
Here, let me try this example. Say you go to the doctor, who diagnoses you with lupus. You as why, and he says that you exhib 6 abnormal symptoms which are present in nearly all lupus cases, though each individually can happen in other diseases too. These 6 include that your blood protein level (indicates lupus 75% of the time, because some other disease can show that same indicator), your temperature distribution (indicates lupus 45% of the time), your serum sodium concentration (indicates lupus 85% of the time), your macrophage indicator (indicates lupus 90% of the time), your systolic pressure elevation (indicates lupus 20% of the time), and your HDL level (indicates lupus 85% of the time).
Combining these lines of evidence makes lupus a very likely situation, even though any one of these alone would not indicate lupus with much certainty. In fact, an addition measure, even if at a less than 50% probabily - say 25%, would further increase the confidence of your diagnosis.
Originally Posted by
Papias
Simply false, because, as described above, that's pretending that the single trait is the only evidence we have. It's not. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I can write out a longer example looking at, say, a whale flipper. But before I take the time to do that, I want to see if you already see what I'm saying.
Some of my other citations addressed this.
Which ones? Being that it illogical to ignore other lines of evidence presented by those other traits, it sounds to me like you are saying that your other citations said to abandon logic. Since I don't think you or I would advocat that, one of us is misunderstanding your proposed citiations. Pointing out which one will help us sort out what you are proposing is being said in that citiation.
Thanks for the reply. I hope your day is going well.
Papias
For reference, that last post to list the topics was post #146, with the addition of the views of the biologists on page 17. Also, post #175, plus "discard tree of life" = discard copernican system".
