Proof - Many Scientific Terms Are Widely Misunderstood

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus =/= science

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Easy. "The Beak of the Finch" Jonathan Weiner.
The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time: Jonathan Weiner: 9780679733379: Amazon.com: Books

You are supposed to be able to predict what type of evolution will occur.....not that something WILL occur.

So, would a prediction of something that has occurred but has not been found yet qualify?

For a simple example, a prediction about a common ancestor which is unknown at the time, but is subsequently discovered.
Would that fit the definition?

Aren't ancestors in the past? Do you think that fits the definition of something happening in the future?

 

[Kosh]

Not really.

How about addressing the untestable hypothesis definition then.

Everything is an "untestable-hypothesis" until it's tested - for example; when Cheney/Bush/Rice etc. sweet talked a minority of the American public into thinking there were WMD's in Iraq they ignored the...

...7. Statistically Significant...

Mathematician Jordan Ellenberg wants to set the record straight about this idea:

"Statistically significant" is one of those phrases scientists would love to have a chance to take back and rename. "Significant" suggests importance; but the test of statistical significance, developed by the British statistician R.A. Fisher, doesn't measure the importance or size of an effect; only whether we are able to distinguish it, using our keenest statistical tools, from zero. "Statistically noticeable" or "Statistically discernible" would be much better.
​

...which is what climate deniers do, it may have something to do with the apparent hard wired in conservative brain structure and their inability to cope with conflicting information.
.

So you still believe that there are 9 planets in the solar system?

 

[idb]

You are supposed to be able to predict what type of evolution will occur.....not that something WILL occur.

So, would a prediction of something that has occurred but has not been found yet qualify?

For a simple example, a prediction about a common ancestor which is unknown at the time, but is subsequently discovered.
Would that fit the definition?

Aren't ancestors in the past? Do you think that fits the definition of something happening in the future?

If you haven't discovered it yet, but predicted that it should have existed, haven't you proven your hypothesis?
Evolution will be dependent on variables and antecedents that surely could not possibly be predicted.

 

[idb]

You are supposed to be able to predict what type of evolution will occur.....not that something WILL occur.

So, would a prediction of something that has occurred but has not been found yet qualify?

For a simple example, a prediction about a common ancestor which is unknown at the time, but is subsequently discovered.
Would that fit the definition?

It certainly qualifies as PART of the hypothesis. This is an example of how the scientific method works. Many scientists had been working on the theory of Plate Tectonics. No one though could figure out the MECHANICS of the process.

J. Tuzo Wilson thought long and hard and came up with the hypothesis of "transverse faults" to explain how it worked. He then described what they would look like, and more importantly how they could be found and identified through seismic analysis.

He was proven absolutely correct in every respect. Everything that he predicted WOULD (note, science doesn't deal in "shoulds" that is the realm of charlatans) be there, was.

All it would have taken for his hypothesis to fail was for one of his predictions to be shown false, he would have then started over and come up with a better one.

Climatology has had multiple predictions shown to be false. That's why they no longer make measurable predictions.

So....once again...what is the definition of an "untestable hypothesis"?

Great, so if part of a hypothesis is proven then the hypothesis can be amended and re-tested...until it is refined to an acceptable theory.

An untestable hypothesis would be trying to prove a negative I suppose.
"There are no purple polar bears" for example.
Am I right, do I win?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, would a prediction of something that has occurred but has not been found yet qualify?

For a simple example, a prediction about a common ancestor which is unknown at the time, but is subsequently discovered.
Would that fit the definition?

Aren't ancestors in the past? Do you think that fits the definition of something happening in the future?

If you haven't discovered it yet, but predicted that it should have existed, haven't you proven your hypothesis?
Evolution will be dependent on variables and antecedents that surely could not possibly be predicted.

You would have to provide an actual example.

Good luck with that, evolutionary theory is based on observation, not on theoretical models of future events.

 

[BobPlumb]

It seems to me that one type of experiment to validate evolution would be to determined if resistant strains of bacteria evolve when treated with antibiotics. It would not be necessary to predict exactly what mutation would occur that would provide the resistance in the bacteria, only that it would occur and the resistant strain of bacteria would develop.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems to me that one type of experiment to validate evolution would be to determined if resistant strains of bacteria evolve when treated with antibiotics. It would not be necessary to predict exactly what mutation would occur that would provide the resistance in the bacteria, only that it would occur and the resistant strain of bacteria would develop.

Bacteria randomly evolve resistances to various bacteria. Experiments have proven that at least some bacteria is resistant to antibiotics even before we find them. It is misuse of antibiotics that allow these resistant bacteria to survive, and eventually spread enough that they become a dominant strain.

 

[BobPlumb]

It seems to me that one type of experiment to validate evolution would be to determined if resistant strains of bacteria evolve when treated with antibiotics. It would not be necessary to predict exactly what mutation would occur that would provide the resistance in the bacteria, only that it would occur and the resistant strain of bacteria would develop.

Bacteria randomly evolve resistances to various bacteria. Experiments have proven that at least some bacteria is resistant to antibiotics even before we find them. It is misuse of antibiotics that allow these resistant bacteria to survive, and eventually spread enough that they become a dominant strain.

Perhaps this experiment could be duplicated:




One of the first to carry out a controlled evolution experiment was William Dallinger. In the late 19th century, he cultivated small unicellular organisms in a custom-built incubator over a time period of seven years (1880–1886). Dallinger slowly increased the temperature of the incubator from an initial 60 °F up to 158 °F. The early cultures had shown clear signs of distress at a temperature of 73 °F, and were certainly not capable of surviving at 158 °F. The organisms Dallinger had in his incubator at the end of the experiment, on the other hand, were perfectly fine at 158 °F. However, these organisms would no longer grow at the initial 60 °F. Dallinger concluded that he had found evidence for Darwinian adaptation in his incubator, and that the organisms had adapted to live in a high-temperature environment. Unfortunately, Dallinger's incubator was accidentally destroyed in 1886, and Dallinger could not continue this line of research.

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

So, would a prediction of something that has occurred but has not been found yet qualify?

For a simple example, a prediction about a common ancestor which is unknown at the time, but is subsequently discovered.
Would that fit the definition?

It certainly qualifies as PART of the hypothesis. This is an example of how the scientific method works. Many scientists had been working on the theory of Plate Tectonics. No one though could figure out the MECHANICS of the process.

J. Tuzo Wilson thought long and hard and came up with the hypothesis of "transverse faults" to explain how it worked. He then described what they would look like, and more importantly how they could be found and identified through seismic analysis.

He was proven absolutely correct in every respect. Everything that he predicted WOULD (note, science doesn't deal in "shoulds" that is the realm of charlatans) be there, was.

All it would have taken for his hypothesis to fail was for one of his predictions to be shown false, he would have then started over and come up with a better one.

Climatology has had multiple predictions shown to be false. That's why they no longer make measurable predictions.

So....once again...what is the definition of an "untestable hypothesis"?

Great, so if part of a hypothesis is proven then the hypothesis can be amended and re-tested...until it is refined to an acceptable theory.

An untestable hypothesis would be trying to prove a negative I suppose.
"There are no purple polar bears" for example.
Am I right, do I win?

Wow. You really don't understand even the basics do you..... If a scientist claims that global warming is going to cause both LESS rain and MORE rain....how do you test that?

Now, after trying to figure out how to weasel yourself out of that little quandary....what is the definition of an UNTESTABLE hypothesis? C'mon, I know you can do it.....

 

[itfitzme]

​

For libs, 1+1 is a challenge.

What does this equal? d/dt(1/t^3)?

 

[itfitzme]

I would propose "Theory".
Especially when used by the anti-evolution crowd.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory

They use theory when they should use hypotheses.

 

[itfitzme]

Care to cite an example.

Easy. "The Beak of the Finch" Jonathan Weiner.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution/dp/067973337X]The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time: Jonathan Weiner: 9780679733379: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

You are supposed to be able to predict what type of evolution will occur.....not that something WILL occur.

According to who? You?

 

[itfitzme]

It certainly qualifies as PART of the hypothesis. This is an example of how the scientific method works. Many scientists had been working on the theory of Plate Tectonics. No one though could figure out the MECHANICS of the process.

J. Tuzo Wilson thought long and hard and came up with the hypothesis of "transverse faults" to explain how it worked. He then described what they would look like, and more importantly how they could be found and identified through seismic analysis.

He was proven absolutely correct in every respect. Everything that he predicted WOULD (note, science doesn't deal in "shoulds" that is the realm of c TVharlatans) be there, was.

All it would have taken for his hypothesis to fail was for one of his predictions to be shown false, he would have then started over and come up with a better one.

Climatology has had multiple predictions shown to be false. That's why they no longer make measurable predictions.

So....once again...what is the definition of an "untestable hypothesis"?

Great, so if part of a hypothesis is proven then the hypothesis can be amended and re-tested...until it is refined to an acceptable theory.

An untestable hypothesis would be trying to prove a negative I suppose.
"There are no purple polar bears" for example.
Am I right, do I win?

Wow. You really don't understand even the basics do you..... If a scientist claims that global warming is going to cause both LESS rain and MORE rain....how do you test that?

Now, after trying to figure out how to weasel yourself out of that little quandary....what is the definition of an UNTESTABLE hypothesis? C'mon, I know you can do it.....

What scientist made that claim? Under what conditions? Or is that you've made up your own absurd idea of it raining both 6" of rain and .2 v or rain at the exact same hour in the ezact same place.

I can tell you that every utterance you make are untestably hypothesis.

 

[westwall]

Great, so if part of a hypothesis is proven then the hypothesis can be amended and re-tested...until it is refined to an acceptable theory.

An untestable hypothesis would be trying to prove a negative I suppose.
"There are no purple polar bears" for example.
Am I right, do I win?

Wow. You really don't understand even the basics do you..... If a scientist claims that global warming is going to cause both LESS rain and MORE rain....how do you test that?

Now, after trying to figure out how to weasel yourself out of that little quandary....what is the definition of an UNTESTABLE hypothesis? C'mon, I know you can do it.....

What scientist made that claim? Under what conditions? Or is that you've made up your own absurd idea of it raining both 6" of rain and .2 v or rain at the exact same hour in the ezact same place.

I can tell you that every utterance you make are untestably hypothesis.

YOUR scientists have made those predictions jackass. Do try to keep up, or are you merely just playing stupid to avoid answering the question. The scientific method DEMANDS testability you ignorant twerp. If it is untestable it is PSEUDO-SCIENCE!

Here's the wiki (the limit of your ability...clearly) entry on pseudo-science.....you'll see the characteristics of it are vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims. Basically a litany of climatology claims...

Pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"WASHINGTON — Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warming on downpours that often cause deadly flooding.

Two studies in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature link heavy rains to increases in greenhouse gases more than ever before."


Scientists Connect Global Warming To Extreme Rain


Increased drought in dry areas. In drier regions, evapotranspiration may produce periods of drought—defined as below-normal levels of rivers, lakes, and groundwater, and lack of enough soil moisture in agricultural areas. Precipitation has declined in the tropics and subtropics since 1970. Southern Africa, the Sahel region of Africa, southern Asia, the Mediterranean, and the U.S. Southwest, for example, are getting drier. Even areas that remain relatively wet can experience long, dry conditions between extreme precipitation events.
•Expansion of dry areas. Scientists expect the amount of land affected by drought to grow by mid-century—and water resources in affected areas to decline as much as 30 percent. These changes occur partly because of an expanding atmospheric circulation pattern known as the Hadley Cell—in which warm air in the tropics rises, loses moisture to tropical thunderstorms, and descends in the subtropics as dry air. As jet streams continue to shift to higher latitudes, and storm patterns shift along with them, semi-arid and desert areas are expected to expand.


Global Warming Effects on Drought

 

[SmedlyButler]

That was funny.

If the theory of evolution meets your definition of theory feel free to provide actual examples of it predicting future events. Please note, the future will be different is not a prediction.

Alternatively, you can admit your definition of theory is too restrictive and revise it.

Here is a good one that doesn't leave out the Theory of Evolution.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory

Hilarious.
That's the same link as mine!

Damn, it is. I guess that makes me as stupid as you in posting links.

Doesn't change the fact that evolution does not predict future events, yet it is still a valid scientific theory, which is why the definition is faulty.

the hang up here. Have a look at this and see what you think.

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

 

[idb]

Hilarious.
That's the same link as mine!

Damn, it is. I guess that makes me as stupid as you in posting links.

Doesn't change the fact that evolution does not predict future events, yet it is still a valid scientific theory, which is why the definition is faulty.

the hang up here. Have a look at this and see what you think.

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

No, Smedly, that's no good.
According to Windbag, it's only valid as a prediction if it's predicting something that will happen in the future...not something that we might discover in the future.
If we discover something in the future that confirms something that was hypothesised in the past but happened previous to the future - then it doesn't count....apparently.

 

[idb]

It certainly qualifies as PART of the hypothesis. This is an example of how the scientific method works. Many scientists had been working on the theory of Plate Tectonics. No one though could figure out the MECHANICS of the process.

J. Tuzo Wilson thought long and hard and came up with the hypothesis of "transverse faults" to explain how it worked. He then described what they would look like, and more importantly how they could be found and identified through seismic analysis.

He was proven absolutely correct in every respect. Everything that he predicted WOULD (note, science doesn't deal in "shoulds" that is the realm of charlatans) be there, was.

All it would have taken for his hypothesis to fail was for one of his predictions to be shown false, he would have then started over and come up with a better one.

Climatology has had multiple predictions shown to be false. That's why they no longer make measurable predictions.

So....once again...what is the definition of an "untestable hypothesis"?

Great, so if part of a hypothesis is proven then the hypothesis can be amended and re-tested...until it is refined to an acceptable theory.

An untestable hypothesis would be trying to prove a negative I suppose.
"There are no purple polar bears" for example.
Am I right, do I win?

Wow. You really don't understand even the basics do you..... If a scientist claims that global warming is going to cause both LESS rain and MORE rain....how do you test that?

Now, after trying to figure out how to weasel yourself out of that little quandary....what is the definition of an UNTESTABLE hypothesis? C'mon, I know you can do it.....

What are you going on about?
What quandary?

I'm talking in generalities about the scientific method...try brow-beating someone about your climate change issues that wants to engage you...that isn't me - not in this thread anyway.

I will say, though, in respect to your example...has a scientist actually published the hypothesis that you described?
Do you know the difference between a prediction and a hypothesis?

 

[westwall]

Great, so if part of a hypothesis is proven then the hypothesis can be amended and re-tested...until it is refined to an acceptable theory.

An untestable hypothesis would be trying to prove a negative I suppose.
"There are no purple polar bears" for example.
Am I right, do I win?

Wow. You really don't understand even the basics do you..... If a scientist claims that global warming is going to cause both LESS rain and MORE rain....how do you test that?

Now, after trying to figure out how to weasel yourself out of that little quandary....what is the definition of an UNTESTABLE hypothesis? C'mon, I know you can do it.....

What are you going on about?
What quandary?

I'm talking in generalities about the scientific method...try brow-beating someone about your climate change issues that wants to engage you...that isn't me - not in this thread anyway.

I will say, though, in respect to your example...has a scientist actually published the hypothesis that you described?
Do you know the difference between a prediction and a hypothesis?

Are you just this dumb or are you trolling now?

 

[SmedlyButler]

Damn, it is. I guess that makes me as stupid as you in posting links.

Doesn't change the fact that evolution does not predict future events, yet it is still a valid scientific theory, which is why the definition is faulty.

the hang up here. Have a look at this and see what you think.

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

No, Smedly, that's no good.
According to Windbag, it's only valid as a prediction if it's predicting something that will happen in the future...not something that we might discover in the future.
If we discover something in the future that confirms something that was hypothesised in the past but happened previous to the future - then it doesn't count....apparently.

If you're familiar with Windbag then you know that the "truth" and "knowledge" windily exclaimed in her posts rarely derive from this world, rather from one concieved in her over-active self-justifying imagination.