Christians are anti-science.

[Cypress]

cite an experiment in which a single celled organism became a sentient being or concede the argument.....

The only evidence of evolution you will accept is when a microbe evolves into a sentient life form in a Petri dish?

I advice you to never set foot on a legitimate college campus due to the risk of being laughed off it.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The only evidence of evolution you will accept is when a microbe evolves into a sentient life form in a Petri dish?

I advice you to never set foot on a legitimate college campus due to the risk of being laughed off it.

if you want to pretend that what you believe is falsifiable you need to accept the responsibility for demonstrating the experiment by which it can be tested.......now if you are willing to admit that the thought that a single celled organism evolving into a human being is NOT the "evolution" that is falsifiable (and is not in fact a scientific theory), there is no reason for us to have this argument.....

 

[Cypress]

/shrugs......so he and you are both wrong.....the lib'rul fantasy that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is not falsifiable.......

So just so we have this for the record:

Anonymous message board poster with no training in science, Pmp, assumes Darwin's theory is not falsifiable.

In contrast, Karl Popper, the preeminent philosopher of science and the seminal founding figure in the falsification criterion of good science, ultimately concluded that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So just so we have this for the record:

Anonymous message board poster with no training in science, Pmp, assumes Darwin's theory is not falsifiable.

In contrast, Karl Popper, the preeminent philosopher of science and the seminal founding figure in the falsification criterion of good science, concluded that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable

regardless of my training in science, it is patently obvious that the alleged scientific "theory" that human beings evolved from a single celled organism is not falsifiable.........anyone who pretends it is (you, popper, or any random mindless fuckwit) either is lying or doesn't actually understand what falsifiable actually means.....

perhaps in the interest of proving you aren't a liar, you could tell us what you believe "falsifiable" means in the context of the scientific method........

 

[Cypress]

regardless of my training in science, it is patently obvious that the alleged scientific "theory" that human beings evolved from a single celled organism is not falsifiable.........anyone who pretends it is (you, popper, or any random mindless fuckwit) either is lying or doesn't actually understand what falsifiable actually means.....

perhaps in the interest of proving you aren't a liar, you could tell us what you believe "falsifiable" means in the context of the scientific method........

The take-away here is that evolution deniers who cling to the word falsification, should really keep their mouths shut if they have not heard of Karl Popper. It is crystal clear you never heard of Karl Popper until I mentioned him.

You cannot run your mouth about the falsification criteria of science without even having a rudimentary knowledge of Karl Popper and philosophy of science.

My advice: if you are going to rely on obscure, rightwing science denying blogs as your souce of science knowlege, you are actually only going to get stupider about the state of evolutionary science.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

“It would be completely non-scientific to ignore that possibility just because it doesn’t conform with some preexisting philosophical prejudices,” says Sean Carroll, a physicist at Caltech, who called for the “retirement” of the falsifiability principle in a controversial essay for Edge last year. Falsifiability is “just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained scientists have latched onto,” argues Carroll. He also bristles at the notion that this viewpoint can be summed up as “elegance will suffice,” as Ellis put it in a stinging Nature comment written with cosmologist Joe Silk.

“Elegance can help us invent new theories, but does not count as empirical evidence in their favor,” says Carroll. “The criteria we use for judging theories are how good they are at accounting for the data, not how pretty or seductive or intuitive they are.”

But Ellis and Silk worry that if physicists abandon falsifiability, they could damage the public’s trust in science and scientists at a time when that trust is critical to policymaking. “This battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results—in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution—are being questioned by some politicians and religious fundamentalists,” Ellis and Silk wrote in Nature.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The take-away here is that evolution deniers who cling to the word falsification, should really keep their mouths shut if they have not heard of Karl Popper. It is crystal clear you never heard of Karl Popper until I mentioned him.

You cannot run your mouth about the falsification criteria of science without even having a rudimentary knowledge of Karl Popper and philosophy of science.

My advice: if you are going to rely on obscure, rightwing science denying blogs as your souce of science knowlege, you are actually only going to get stupider about the state of evolutionary science.

/shrugs........hadn't heard of Popper.......had no need to hear of Popper........now that I have heard of him, (and I only have your word of what he says which by the way seems to contradict what others report he says) all I know is that he is as obviously wrong as you are........

I don't need any help identifying what "falsification" means.....particularly when you seem to have no intent to state what it is you believe it means.......as I have said before, I focus on the philosophy of science.......I seek the understanding of that which we say, means.......

in the sense of science, falsification as it has been known for hundreds of years, is the test of whether your argument is science or not.......what you want to pretend is science is nothing more than your untestable fantasy.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

My advice: if you are going to rely on obscure, rightwing science denying blogs as your souce of science knowlege, you are actually only going to get stupider about the state of evolutionary science.

so you don't like Nova?.....

 

[Cypress]

/shrugs........hadn't heard of Popper.......had no need to hear of Popper........now that I have heard of him, (and I only have your word of what he says which by the way seems to contradict what others report he says) all I know is that he is as obviously wrong as you are........

I don't need any help identifying what "falsification" means.....particularly when you seem to have no intent to state what it is you believe it means.......as I have said before, I focus on the philosophy of science.......I seek the understanding of that which we say, means.......

in the sense of science, falsification as it has been known for hundreds of years, is the test of whether your argument is science or not.......what you want to pretend is science is nothing more than your untestable fantasy.......

No, before Karl Popper, it was widely assumed that lots of observational evidence was the mark of a good scientific theory. The criterion of falsification has not been around for centuries, in the manner articulated by Popper. Popper pointed to general relativity and the Eddington experiment as an example of a scientific theory being willing to subject itself to outright falsification.

Popper ultimately came to believe Darwin's theory was an example of a scientific theory which was testable and falsifiable.

 

[Cypress]

so you don't like Nova?.....

The science program Nova has never run a series denying evolution.

There is no doubt that many questions remain about evolution.

500 years after Issac Newton we are still researching gravity, because we do not have it all figured out. It has only been 150 years since Darwin.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No, before Karl Popper, it was widely assumed that lots of observational evidence was the mark of a good scientific theory

observation of what?........are you claiming the scientific method didn't demand controlled experimentation........if you are, stop wasting my time......

Popper ultimately came to believe Darwin's theory was an example of a scientific theory which was testable and falsifiable.

so, is it your claim that Darwin's theory is not the one we are discussing (that humans evolved from single celled organisms) or are you claiming that human evolution from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The science program Nova has never run a series denying evolution.

There is no doubt that many questions remain about evolution.

500 years after Issac Newton we are still researching gravity, because we do not have it all figured out. It has only been 150 years since Darwin.

stop being a cunt......no one has claimed Nova ran a series denying evolution......I linked a comment from Nova on the topic we are discussing and you claimed my only source was a right wing blog.....respond honestly or stfu......

 

[Into the Night]

Philosopher of science

There is no such thing as a 'philosopher of science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not philosophy.

Karl Popper, who is the founding figure in the falsification criterion of science, originally thought Darwin's theory was not falsifiable. But later, after he thought about it more, he decided is was testable and falsifiable.

So? It's been falsified.

That's right. The founder of the falsification criterion of science himself thought evolution by natural selection is falsifiable.

So? It's been falsified.

Evolution by natural selection has been tested and confirmed by laboratory-controlled experimentation, field observation, fossil record, and genetics.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

 

[Into the Night]

/shrugs......so he and you are both wrong.....the lib'rul fantasy that human beings evolved from single celled organisms is not falsifiable.......

You are correct. There are two theories in discussion here, which Cypress is conflating as the same theory:

The Theory of Evolution, created by the ancient Greeks, which is not falsifiable. It states that present day life evolved from more primitive life.
The Theory of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution proposed by Darwin. It has been falsified. It states that present day life is the result of a 'natural selection' of a wider variety of life. Unfortunately for Darwin, this theory is a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

The only evidence of evolution you will accept is when a microbe evolves into a sentient life form in a Petri dish?

I advice you to never set foot on a legitimate college campus due to the risk of being laughed off it.

Define 'legitimate college campus'. You don't get to speak for any college or university. You only get to speak for you.

 

[Into the Night]

So just so we have this for the record:

Anonymous message board poster with no training in science, Pmp, assumes Darwin's theory is not falsifiable.

In contrast, Karl Popper, the preeminent philosopher of science and the seminal founding figure in the falsification criterion of good science, ultimately concluded that Darwin's theory is testable and falsifiable

It has been falsified.

 

[Into the Night]

The take-away here is that evolution deniers who cling to the word falsification, should really keep their mouths shut if they have not heard of Karl Popper. It is crystal clear you never heard of Karl Popper until I mentioned him.

You cannot run your mouth about the falsification criteria of science without even having a rudimentary knowledge of Karl Popper and philosophy of science.

My advice: if you are going to rely on obscure, rightwing science denying blogs as your souce of science knowlege, you are actually only going to get stupider about the state of evolutionary science.

Denial of philosophy. Denial of Karl Popper. Science isn't 'knowledge'. Science isn't 'evolution'. Science isn't a blog. Science has no politics. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

The science program Nova has never run a series denying evolution.

There is no doubt that many questions remain about evolution.

500 years after Issac Newton we are still researching gravity, because we do not have it all figured out. It has only been 150 years since Darwin.

Science isn't a TV show. No theory is ever proven True. Newton never made a theory of gravity, only about it's effects. Gravity is not a theory. It is a force. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified.

 

[Into the Night]

observation of what?........are you claiming the scientific method didn't demand controlled experimentation........if you are, stop wasting my time......



so, is it your claim that Darwin's theory is not the one we are discussing (that humans evolved from single celled organisms) or are you claiming that human evolution from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......

Actually, science isn't observation at all, nor any experiment.

All observations (and the data they produce) are subject to the problems of phenomenology. The simplest example of this is the optical illusion or a magic show. We each interpret what we see according to our own personal model of the universe and the way we figure it works.

Science is not observations. Observations are evidence only. Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Into the Night]

/shrugs........hadn't heard of Popper.......had no need to hear of Popper........now that I have heard of him, (and I only have your word of what he says which by the way seems to contradict what others report he says) all I know is that he is as obviously wrong as you are........

I don't need any help identifying what "falsification" means.....particularly when you seem to have no intent to state what it is you believe it means.......as I have said before, I focus on the philosophy of science.......I seek the understanding of that which we say, means.......

in the sense of science, falsification as it has been known for hundreds of years, is the test of whether your argument is science or not.......what you want to pretend is science is nothing more than your untestable fantasy.......

Karl Popper first argued that difference between science and religion is that science is about falsifiability. Since then, this argument has been distilled down to its essence. His works contain many well argued philosophies. You might enjoy reading them.

Science itself isn't philosophy. It is, however, defined by philosophy. So are words like 'religion' and 'real'. Philosophy itself is very simple. You must present your own arguments, free of fallacies. You cannot use the arguments of another as your own argument. The branch of philosophy that concerns the definition of 'real' is called phenomenology. That branch of philosophy is all about observations and how we perceive them.

A theory is just an explanatory argument. An argument is just a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory of science, in addition to being a theory, must also be falsifiable. All theories begin initially as circular arguments. This is not in and of itself a fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. Attempting to prove a circular argument as True is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist (like Cypress) does. He is trying to prove the circular argument of the Theory of Evolution True.