Proof - Many Scientific Terms Are Widely Misunderstood

[SmedlyButler]

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.

"survive, and eventually spread enough that they become a dominant strain." You have nicely encapsulated Darwin's concept of natural selection. Thanks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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).

Retrodictions are not predictions. I know people love to point to predictions of the past to prove that evolution does make predictions, but unless they can show the chain of reasoning based on evolutionary modeling that makes those guesses into actual predictions they really aren't proving that evolution makes predictions, all they are proving is that some people get lucky. I can point to hundreds of examples of predictions that were wrong, would those somehow prove that evolution is not a science?

By the way, I clearly provided definitions of the word theory from actual scientific organizations that eliminate the need to be able to predict events in order for a theory to be a theory. I do not understand why anyone needs to defend evolution on the basis that it needs to be able to predict events in order for it to be a scientific theory, but feel free to continue to shoehorn evolution into your definition instead of simply accepting it as science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

We might discover artificial wormholes built by an advanced civilization that existed billions of years ago. Would me making that prediction fit into any definition of scientific theory that you can come up with?

 

[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.

"survive, and eventually spread enough that they become a dominant strain." You have nicely encapsulated Darwin's concept of natural selection. Thanks.

That is because I actually understand the way evolution works. Random changes produce random results, and some mutations survive randomly.

The strange part is that you didn't comment on the post that got it wrong.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Evolution cannot actually predict future events, thus it doesn't meet your definition of theory.

Sure it can.

No it cannot, all it can predict is that things change, it cannot predict what that change will be. If you want an example of a theory that can predict future events watch your weather report on TV tonight.

QW - No it (evolution) cannot,(predict future events) all it can predict is that things change, it cannot predict what that change will be.

You just don't get it. I'm starting to think you're incapable of grasping simple concepts.

Try real hard here. These are but a few of evolutions successful predictions. "Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it".

Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.

OR:

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).

The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure it can.

No it cannot, all it can predict is that things change, it cannot predict what that change will be. If you want an example of a theory that can predict future events watch your weather report on TV tonight.

QW - No it (evolution) cannot,(predict future events) all it can predict is that things change, it cannot predict what that change will be.

You just don't get it. I'm starting to think you're incapable of grasping simple concepts.

Try real hard here. These are but a few of evolutions successful predictions. "Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it".

Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.

OR:

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).

The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.

The real point is that evolution is falsifiable, yet hasn't been proven wrong.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Einstein proposed that general relativity suggested wormholes could exist. I don't know if he actually predicted their existence. I believe I've heard that others have derived mathmatical predictions of wormholes. Interesting concept. I certainly don't have the math to dispute or demonstrate their work.

QW - We might discover artificial wormholes built by an advanced civilization that existed billions of years ago. Would me making that prediction fit into any definition of scientific theory that you can come up with?

The way it works is the person making the scientific prediction (you) demonstrates, usually mathematically, the logical steps used to reach your hypothesis. You or others may design experiments to prove or disprove. Look up the scientific method if you're confused.
A fanciful conjecture is not science.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Q.W.The real point is that evolution is falsifiable, yet hasn't been proven wrong.

We agree.

 

[SmedlyButler]

QW - That is because I actually understand the way evolution works. Random changes produce random results, and some mutations survive randomly.

The strange part is that you didn't comment on the post that got it wrong.

Actually you "don't understand the way evolution works" Any rational examination of your posts would come to the opposite conclusion. But I can see you're trying. I'm no expert on the subject myself. Here's a good resource I've found useful. Maybe you already know it.

Darwin on-line, with the complete works of Darwin from Origin of Species to his Private Papers & Manuscripts
Notebooks, Journal, student bills, marriage notes,
Geological diary, etc

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Einstein proposed that general relativity suggested wormholes could exist. I don't know if he actually predicted their existence. I believe I've heard that others have derived mathmatical predictions of wormholes. Interesting concept. I certainly don't have the math to dispute or demonstrate their work.

QW - We might discover artificial wormholes built by an advanced civilization that existed billions of years ago. Would me making that prediction fit into any definition of scientific theory that you can come up with?

The way it works is the person making the scientific prediction (you) demonstrates, usually mathematically, the logical steps used to reach your hypothesis. You or others may design experiments to prove or disprove. Look up the scientific method if you're confused.
A fanciful conjecture is not science.

I understand the scientific method quite well, what I don't understand is why you insist that my prediction has to fit inside it.

Feel free to explain the mathematical concepts involved in looking at evolutionary process and filling in the gaps with guesses, which is what most of your examples of retodiction amount to. It is pretty easy to fill in the gaps in evolution and wait for them to be discovered, it is a lot more difficult to make specific predictions based on mathematical models, which do not exist for evolution.

There is no way to predict which random mutation will occur, nor is there a way to predict which mutation will eventually turn out to be the one that works. It is entirely possible for a favorable mutation to disappear by accident if the individual that gets the mutation is killed before it is passed on. We do not have the computing power to factor in every possible environmental factor, random events like a fire or even a tree falling on an individual, every possible mutation, and all the other things that affect evolution, which is why no one is actually able to make predictions using it, despite the effort to fit retodictions into the the theory by misguided individuals.

It isn't evolution that I object to, it is the effort by people who don't understand all the factors involved to defend it using faulty arguments. Dawkins is a prime example of the people I am talking about. He is content to use circular reasoning as to defend the idea that evolution is true because he thinks he is talking to people that don't know enough to challenge his assumptions. That is why he loses debates with creationists who can actually keep up with him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW - That is because I actually understand the way evolution works. Random changes produce random results, and some mutations survive randomly.

The strange part is that you didn't comment on the post that got it wrong.

Actually you "don't understand the way evolution works" Any rational examination of your posts would come to the opposite conclusion. But I can see you're trying. I'm no expert on the subject myself. Here's a good resource I've found useful. Maybe you already know it.

Darwin on-line, with the complete works of Darwin from Origin of Species to his Private Papers & Manuscripts
Notebooks, Journal, student bills, marriage notes,
Geological diary, etc

What is it you think I do not understand. Math tells me that randomness cannot be eliminated unless an intelligent force corrects for it. Natural selection is not an intelligent force, all it does is kill off unfavorable mutations in the immediate environment. Scientist used to believe that life was impossible in volcanic vents yet life has been discovered in them because evolution is capable of adapting to every possible environment once life exists. That would not happen if early concepts of evolution were correct.

 

[itfitzme]

It can predict that change will occur in response to environmental conditions and pressures.
That's the basis of evolution theory.

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!

Marvelous!!

 

[itfitzme]

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

That is exactly what I expect. More precipitation in one place and less somewhere else

You've simoly proven the hypothesis that you have no comprehension of reality, let alone science. There is nothing is nothing inconsistent with a prediction of more rain in one place and less somewhere else. They aren't mutually exclusive events.

 

[itfitzme]

QW - That is because I actually understand the way evolution works. Random changes produce random results, and some mutations survive randomly.

The strange part is that you didn't comment on the post that got it wrong.

Actually you "don't understand the way evolution works" Any rational examination of your posts would come to the opposite conclusion. But I can see you're trying. I'm no expert on the subject myself. Here's a good resource I've found useful. Maybe you already know it.

Darwin on-line, with the complete works of Darwin from Origin of Species to his Private Papers & Manuscripts
Notebooks, Journal, student bills, marriage notes,
Geological diary, etc

You might mention to him that he has the "and some mutations survive randomly." part wrong. There is nothing random about the surviving part. The mutation that survive are the ones give the organism an advantage given its environment. It is why it is called "natural selection" and not "random selection".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW - That is because I actually understand the way evolution works. Random changes produce random results, and some mutations survive randomly.

The strange part is that you didn't comment on the post that got it wrong.

Actually you "don't understand the way evolution works" Any rational examination of your posts would come to the opposite conclusion. But I can see you're trying. I'm no expert on the subject myself. Here's a good resource I've found useful. Maybe you already know it.

Darwin on-line, with the complete works of Darwin from Origin of Species to his Private Papers & Manuscripts
Notebooks, Journal, student bills, marriage notes,
Geological diary, etc

You might mention to him that he has the "and some mutations survive randomly." part wrong. There is nothing random about the surviving part. The mutation that survive are the ones give the organism an advantage given its environment. It is why it is called "natural selection" and not "random selection".

You might want to study mathematics to see how sorry your argument that natural selection eliminates the random result is.

 

[westwall]

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

That is exactly what I expect. More precipitation in one place and less somewhere else

You've simoly proven the hypothesis that you have no comprehension of reality, let alone science. There is nothing is nothing inconsistent with a prediction of more rain in one place and less somewhere else. They aren't mutually exclusive events.

And you've just proven to us that you'll buy the Brooklyn bridge when it comes up for sale.... Or maybe its that swamp land that you'll jump for...

 

[Star]

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.
.

You just screwed up whatever point you were trying to make in this thread, and proved that you are more than willing to misuse science to score political points.

Looking back over many-many threads, I see rightwingers asking for "scientific proof" for climate change or evolution or...whatever and-----and criticizing articles in which a scientist or technical writer uses words like maybe, possibly, could, should etc. etc. In almost all cases asking for "scientific proof" is a misnomer. Science seldom offers "proof". Unfortunately, many rightwingers brains apparently have difficulty processing the type of conflicting information that science generally offers.


http://modern-science.blogspot.com/2005/10/untestable-hypothesis-and.html

08 October 2005

Untestable Hypothesis and Falsifiability



The Scientific Method has some five key steps to it, as mentioned previously, and reminded here.

1. Observation/Question
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experiment
5. Conclusion

One of the toughest parts of the Scientific Method is simply determining whether it's possible to design an experiment to test your hypothesis. If it IS possible to test it, and there are clear conditions for what counts as refuting your hypothesis, the hypothesis is called falsifiable, and this is a good thing in science. "Falsifiable" means the same thing as "testable," it doesn't mean "proven false." Yeah, it's confusing. So some examples may help.

Hypothesis: There are NO black swans.
Test: Look for a black swan.
Falsifiable? Yes
Potential Falsification: Finding a black swan.
Truth Status: False (there are black swans).

Hypothesis: There are pink elephants.
Test: Look for a pink elephant.
Falsifiable? No
Potential Falsification: None. If you looked around the whole world, maybe it was hiding in Japan while you were in New Zealand. If you saw the whole world simultaneously, maybe it's on Mars. Or another solar system. It's impossible to actually carry out the test.
Truth Status: So far it appears false, but we're not sure. The statment "there is no such thing as a pink elephant" is a good example of something that a non-scientist would call a fact but scientists would say is unproven.

Hypothesis: Throwing a virgin in an active volcano appeases the gods and prevents the volcano from erupting.
Test: Don't throw a virgin in volcanos.
Falsifiable? Partially.
Potential Falsification: The problem is that if you do throw in the virgins and it doesn't erupt, you're not sure if it's that or something else which prevented the volcano from erupting. If you don't throw in virgins and it does erupt, you're not sure if it's that or something else which did make it erupt. The only condition which definitely would falsify it would be if we threw in a virgin and the volcano erupted anyway. Another way to think about it is that we can't test supernatural forces.
Truth Status: Essentially false, as we've got other explanations for volcano eruption that do not evoke supernatural forces.

Hypothesis: Waging war in Iraq keeps America safe.
Test: Don't wage war in Iraq and see if we get "less safe."
Falsifiable? Perhaps, but are we willing to try the test? And how would we quantify it?







.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.
.

You just screwed up whatever point you were trying to make in this thread, and proved that you are more than willing to misuse science to score political points.

Looking back over many-many threads, I see rightwingers asking for "scientific proof" for climate change or evolution or...whatever and-----and criticizing articles in which a scientist or technical writer uses words like maybe, possibly, could, should etc. etc. In almost all cases asking for "scientific proof" is a misnomer. Science seldom offers "proof". Unfortunately, many rightwingers brains apparently have difficulty processing the type of conflicting information that science generally offers.


http://modern-science.blogspot.com/2005/10/untestable-hypothesis-and.html

08 October 2005

Untestable Hypothesis and Falsifiability



The Scientific Method has some five key steps to it, as mentioned previously, and reminded here.

1. Observation/Question
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experiment
5. Conclusion

One of the toughest parts of the Scientific Method is simply determining whether it's possible to design an experiment to test your hypothesis. If it IS possible to test it, and there are clear conditions for what counts as refuting your hypothesis, the hypothesis is called falsifiable, and this is a good thing in science. "Falsifiable" means the same thing as "testable," it doesn't mean "proven false." Yeah, it's confusing. So some examples may help.

Hypothesis: There are NO black swans.
Test: Look for a black swan.
Falsifiable? Yes
Potential Falsification: Finding a black swan.
Truth Status: False (there are black swans).

Hypothesis: There are pink elephants.
Test: Look for a pink elephant.
Falsifiable? No
Potential Falsification: None. If you looked around the whole world, maybe it was hiding in Japan while you were in New Zealand. If you saw the whole world simultaneously, maybe it's on Mars. Or another solar system. It's impossible to actually carry out the test.
Truth Status: So far it appears false, but we're not sure. The statment "there is no such thing as a pink elephant" is a good example of something that a non-scientist would call a fact but scientists would say is unproven.

Hypothesis: Throwing a virgin in an active volcano appeases the gods and prevents the volcano from erupting.
Test: Don't throw a virgin in volcanos.
Falsifiable? Partially.
Potential Falsification: The problem is that if you do throw in the virgins and it doesn't erupt, you're not sure if it's that or something else which prevented the volcano from erupting. If you don't throw in virgins and it does erupt, you're not sure if it's that or something else which did make it erupt. The only condition which definitely would falsify it would be if we threw in a virgin and the volcano erupted anyway. Another way to think about it is that we can't test supernatural forces.
Truth Status: Essentially false, as we've got other explanations for volcano eruption that do not evoke supernatural forces.

Hypothesis: Waging war in Iraq keeps America safe.
Test: Don't wage war in Iraq and see if we get "less safe."
Falsifiable? Perhaps, but are we willing to try the test? And how would we quantify it?







.

Looking back through many threads I see left wingers making idiotic statements about science. Unlike you, I understand that the idiots are in the minority, and treat them as individuals instead of trying to lump everyone into one box.

You should try it yourself, you will win more arguments.

 

[Star]

You just screwed up whatever point you were trying to make in this thread, and proved that you are more than willing to misuse science to score political points.

Looking back over many-many threads, I see rightwingers asking for "scientific proof" for climate change or evolution or...whatever and-----and criticizing articles in which a scientist or technical writer uses words like maybe, possibly, could, should etc. etc. In almost all cases asking for "scientific proof" is a misnomer. Science seldom offers "proof". Unfortunately, many rightwingers brains apparently have difficulty processing the type of conflicting information that science generally offers.


http://modern-science.blogspot.com/2005/10/untestable-hypothesis-and.html

08 October 2005

Untestable Hypothesis and Falsifiability



The Scientific Method has some five key steps to it, as mentioned previously, and reminded here.

1. Observation/Question
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experiment
5. Conclusion

One of the toughest parts of the Scientific Method is simply determining whether it's possible to design an experiment to test your hypothesis. If it IS possible to test it, and there are clear conditions for what counts as refuting your hypothesis, the hypothesis is called falsifiable, and this is a good thing in science. "Falsifiable" means the same thing as "testable," it doesn't mean "proven false." Yeah, it's confusing. So some examples may help.

Hypothesis: There are NO black swans.
Test: Look for a black swan.
Falsifiable? Yes
Potential Falsification: Finding a black swan.
Truth Status: False (there are black swans).

Hypothesis: There are pink elephants.
Test: Look for a pink elephant.
Falsifiable? No
Potential Falsification: None. If you looked around the whole world, maybe it was hiding in Japan while you were in New Zealand. If you saw the whole world simultaneously, maybe it's on Mars. Or another solar system. It's impossible to actually carry out the test.
Truth Status: So far it appears false, but we're not sure. The statment "there is no such thing as a pink elephant" is a good example of something that a non-scientist would call a fact but scientists would say is unproven.

Hypothesis: Throwing a virgin in an active volcano appeases the gods and prevents the volcano from erupting.
Test: Don't throw a virgin in volcanos.
Falsifiable? Partially.
Potential Falsification: The problem is that if you do throw in the virgins and it doesn't erupt, you're not sure if it's that or something else which prevented the volcano from erupting. If you don't throw in virgins and it does erupt, you're not sure if it's that or something else which did make it erupt. The only condition which definitely would falsify it would be if we threw in a virgin and the volcano erupted anyway. Another way to think about it is that we can't test supernatural forces.
Truth Status: Essentially false, as we've got other explanations for volcano eruption that do not evoke supernatural forces.

Hypothesis: Waging war in Iraq keeps America safe.
Test: Don't wage war in Iraq and see if we get "less safe."
Falsifiable? Perhaps, but are we willing to try the test? And how would we quantify it?







.

Looking back through many threads I see left wingers making idiotic statements about science. Unlike you, I understand that the idiots are in the minority, and treat them as individuals instead of trying to lump everyone into one box.

You should try it yourself, you will win more arguments.

Concession accepted!

It's not me that lumps most Republicans together...that would be Republicans that lump Republicans together. Stop and think about it, over the course of the last few years Senate Republicans have locked arms and filibustered a record number of bills and-----and as for the laziest House of Representatives in history... House Republicans stick together like stink sticks to shit. If Republicans don'[t want to be lumped together - don't lump yourselves together, it's just that simple.
.