Not really. It might make sense if you would read the original source
document, focusing on things like natural selection, man's selection,
sexual selection, etc.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Nope; if anything it would be the other way around, except that I don't
think "survival of the fittest" is a metaphor, technically. More like a
different phrasing. "Survival of the fittest" is a meaningless phrase
once you go beyond the superficial level because it requires the
definition of "fit"; moreover it only imperfectly describes what
actually happens, which is about differential reproduction not
differential survival. Unless we're using "survival" to talk about the
subsistence and spread of a given trait in a given population, in which
case it's yet again sloppy word usage.
So it's "survival of the fittest" that's a "meaningless" (more like
"meaning-poor", really) rephrasing of "natural selection", not the other
way around.
> which in turn was an
> apt short hand for Patrick Matthew's competitive selection process as
> creatures adapted via slow imperceptible *differential* small
> accumulative changes, transforming into different species over
> millions of years.
Oh, so "survival of the fittest" can be an "apt short hand" for a
complex process, but "natural selection" is a "meaningless sentence" ?
You're contradicting yourself.
> Problem with this story is if the other creature
> came to dominate the ecological niche we would be told the exact same
> thing making the proposition indisputable and thus unfalsifiable.
By "the other creature" I'll assume you mean "the other variant, in a
scenario where we're considering the frequency of only two variants in a
population".
Well, you are partly correct in that the match between the environment
and which traits are better adapted to what can be complicated, can make
predicting what will spread where difficult and may lead to situations
where something unexpected happens but we still agree natural selection
happened normally... But the fact is we CAN test natural selection.
There ARE cases where one trait is clearly better for one kind of
environment, where we CAN predict what should happen if natural
selection works. And in those cases we see that natural selection DOES work.
>
> It is when Natural selection( a term ) isn't used as a metaphor that
> its usage in a sentence results in a meaningless sentence:
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence.
>
> Since sentences have no meaning, no word or term actually means
> anything, one is free to use 'natural selection' as a metaphor for
> anything as I did with
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision
Actually, language is a form of communication, so while the
correspondence between a symbol and a concept is mostly arbitrary in
absolute terms, as far as the individual goes the correspondence isn't
arbitrary at all; it exists in a cultural and linguistic context where
you use language to communicate with and be understood by other
individuals, so any word you use needs to be close enough to the
consensus meaning in your group so that others can understand it.
Science is slightly complicated by the fact that everyone needs to agree
on concepts very precisely, so instead of deriving their meaning from a
vague consensus and getting used in metaphorical or hyper/hypobolic ways
all the time, words are defined precisely and explicitly by a group of
people and are expected to be used exactly in that way.
So in other words, the terms "natural selection" aren't arbitrary : they
are common words that approximate the scientific concept of "natural
selection" closely enough that people can assimilate its meaning without
too much difficulty. Other terms or combinations of terms might also
work, but "Preferential decision" in particular is an inferior alternative.
Moreover, if you want to find out what scientific concept "natural
selection" actually refers to independently of what the individual terms
mean, you just need to look it up in a biology textbook.
>
> If we can agree on this , I think we would have finally answered Jerry
> Fodor's question: What then is the intended meaning of natural
> selection?
Look it up in a biology textbook.
"Theory" as in "The theory of evolution." is completely different from
"My theory of who killed the butler is..."
As for survival of the fittest, survival of the just good enough is a
far better term.
If God could be reduced to a falsifiable construct, He won't be God,
since by definition God is outside of the Godelian wall that hems in
our knowledge. In other words the only way you will have an experience
with God himself is if you unreservedly believe what he tells you as
He thrust his hand through the Godelian wall.
Eh, no? The set of falsifiable statements and the set of unfalsifiable
statements are disjunct
>. We use unfalsifiable
> tautological assertions or axioms , they are merely assumed. Godel
> showed that in any logical system there will always be something you
> must assume and will never be able to prove.
As before, wrong as stated and only true for systems of a certain
strength. Nor are Goedel sentences something that we "have to assume"
in order to do logic or logical inferences. they just happen to be
true statements not provable in a certain system X (but typically
provable in a system X+, which then has its won goedel sentence
Physics equations are a subset of mathematical equations which in turn
use unfalsifiable assertions. Unfalsifiability isn't an absolute
principle. Physics equations are falsifiable, not so with axioms.
Don't think that makes any sense. Physics equations are a subset of
equations, as a mathematical equations.
That does not make physics equations a subset of mathematical
equations, even if they use mathematical
vocabulary to express certain contingent facts.
Well, if you've actually read that page on Wikipedia, then you realize
that there isn't a single theory of evolution, but that there are a
number of theories involved.
"Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and
also develop and test theories that explain its causes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Do you understand how mathematics works?
Which makes it unfalsifiable.
> Falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Backspace has spent years of mental toil to blow it again. You can't
make this junk up.
"Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?"
For Backspace the time was likely more than 4 years ago.
Ron Okimoto
There is no problem with the story, and it is not unfalsifiable.
You're still focused on the wrong part of the problem. For some
reason, you think it's necessary to analyze the traits of the
different variants and accurately predict which will be selected over
subsequent generations. But this also requires accurately predicting
how the environment will change (weather conditions, availability of
food, presence and type of predators, etc.). This is extraordinarily
difficult, if not impossible, to do. There are far too many
variables. Yet you seem to think the game is rigged unless we do just
that, that if the "other creature" survives we still claim selection
took place. You're making the logical error of concluding that if this
prediction can't be done, then natural selection is not actually
taking place.
That's like saying that if you can't accurately predict which football
team will win, then player ability and conditioning, and offensive and
defensive strategy have no impact on the outcome of the game. Or that
if you can't predict which company among competing companies will
survive, then business strategy and the economic environment have no
influence on which company will survive. Accurate prediction is
absolutely not necessary. It's irrelevant.
If you want to falsify natural selection, all you have to do is
either:
1) Show that variants do not (or cannot) arise in populations, or
2) Show that the environment does not (or cannot) have an influence on
which variant survives over many generations.
A possible alternative might be to show that natural selection cannot
be observed and analyzed either while it's happening or after the fact
to determine why a variant survived or died out. But this would
probably require that you also claim that a game can't be analyzed to
determine why the winner won, or that businesses and their environment
can't be analyzed to show why a given business survived or failed.
tarski showed that truth itself can,t be defined or reduced to a
logical costruct which means that Jesus(truth) can not be reduced to a
logical construct
> On Sep 10, 3:41 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 6:39 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 10, 9:14 am, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 9/9/2011 4:04 AM, backspace wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 9, 10:42 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> > > > >> So in other words, the terms "natural selection" aren't arbitrary
> > > > >> : they are common words that approximate the scientific concept
> > > > >> of "natural selection" closely enough that people can assimilate
> > > > >> its meaning without too much difficulty. Other terms or
> > > > >> combinations of terms might also work, but "Preferential
> > > > >> decision" in particular is an inferior alternative.
> > > > > Reduce:
> > > > > The terms "natural selection" that approximate the scientific concept
> > > > > of "natural selection" closely enough that people can assimilate its
> > > > > meaning without too much difficulty.
> >
> > > > > Reduce:
> > > > > The terms "natural selection" approximate the concept of "natural
> > > > > selection" ..
> >
> > > > > See how your thinking has become tautological to the point where you
> > > > > are not really thinking anymore . With a metaphor the aim is to call
> > > > > up a visual image. When these images clash, it can be taken as certain
> > > > > that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is
> > > > > naming; in other words he is not really thinking.
> >
> > > > Not so. As with many other things the phrase has a different meaning in
> > > > science then it does in the general public.
> >
> > > > "Theory" as in "The theory of evolution." is completely different from
> > > > "My theory of who killed the butler is..."
> >
> > > > As for survival of the fittest, survival of the just good enough is a
> > > > far better term.
> >
> > > Show me the formally defined Theory of evolution on wikipedia - it
> > > doesn't exist. The page evolution exists, but evolution is a term not
> > > a theory.
> >
> > Well, if you've actually read that page on Wikipedia, then you realize
> > that there isn't a single theory of evolution, but that there are a
> > number of theories involved.
>
> Which makes it unfalsifiable.
"So much the worse for falsificationism."
Jan
>On Sep 10, 7:01�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
>wrote:
>> Chez Watt nomination, "black is white (partly)" category:
>> > Falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability.
>We are informed that evolution us a fact, so is the axiom: what
>happens,happens.
Yes, that which is observed is assumed to happen.
>if it is a fact then it is not falsifiable and thus not in the same
>league as newton's equations
Correct; observations, as contrasted with hypotheses and
theories (which are generalized explanations of
observations) are not usually falsifiable. So?
And what has this to do with your idiotic assertion that
"Falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability"? I'm
beginning to believe that you're a bit fuzzy on the meaning
of "subset".
>On Sep 10, 7:01�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
>wrote:
>> Chez Watt nomination, "black is white (partly)" category:
>> > Falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability.
>tarski showed that truth itself can,t be defined or reduced to a
>logical costruct which means that Jesus(truth) can not be reduced to a
>logical construct
Do you always respond to comments regarding your incorrect
assertions by posting irrelevancies?
Best way to view Darwin, matthew, etc usage of selection is as a
metaphor for survival. Thus patrick matthew's 'natural means of
competitive selection' should be ' natural means of competitive
survival'
The English language is one huge metaphorical mess , allowing to
construct Sokal hoax type meaningless sentences:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/15/hoax_paper_accepted/
"....We are trying to relate the analytic thinking required in focused
conference sessions, to the synthetic thinking, required for analogies
generation, which calls for multi-focus domain and divergent thinking.
We are trying to promote a synergic relation between analytically and
synthetically oriented minds, as it is found between left and right
brain hemispheres, by means of the corpus callosum....."
Stribling's paper consisted of randomly generated buzzwords munged
into complete English sentences by a madlib-like program, so they were
grammatically correct but meaningless: much like one of Jonathan
Schwartz's weblog entries, or a Cory Doctorow novel.
>On Sep 11, 6:37 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:53:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Sep 10, 7:01 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Chez Watt nomination, "black is white (partly)" category:
>> >> > Falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability.
>> >We are informed that evolution us a fact, so is the axiom: what
>> >happens,happens.
>>
>> Yes, that which is observed is assumed to happen.
>>
>> >if it is a fact then it is not falsifiable and thus not in the same
>> >league as newton's equations
>>
>> Correct; observations, as contrasted with hypotheses and
>> theories (which are generalized explanations of
>> observations) are not usually falsifiable. So?
>>
>> And what has this to do with your idiotic assertion that
>> "Falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability"? I'm
>> beginning to believe that you're a bit fuzzy on the meaning
>> of "subset".
>Best way to view Darwin, matthew, etc usage of selection is as a
>metaphor for survival. Thus patrick matthew's 'natural means of
>competitive selection' should be ' natural means of competitive
>survival'
>
>The English language is one huge metaphorical mess , allowing to
>construct Sokal hoax type meaningless sentences:
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/15/hoax_paper_accepted/
>"....We are trying to relate the analytic thinking required in focused
>conference sessions, to the synthetic thinking, required for analogies
>generation, which calls for multi-focus domain and divergent thinking.
>We are trying to promote a synergic relation between analytically and
>synthetically oriented minds, as it is found between left and right
>brain hemispheres, by means of the corpus callosum....."
>
>Stribling's paper consisted of randomly generated buzzwords munged
>into complete English sentences by a madlib-like program, so they were
>grammatically correct but meaningless: much like one of Jonathan
>Schwartz's weblog entries, or a Cory Doctorow novel.
And what has this to do with your idiotic assertion that
"Falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability"? I'm now
more sure than ever that you don't know the meaning of
I answered this very clearly in my previous post. No need to repeat
myself.
These are synonyms:
1) Selection -> Decision
Metaphors as used by Osborne, Matthew, Tyndall, Darwin:
1) Selection -> Survival.
With preferential as in in preferential decision, I used natural as
the metaphor for preferential.
Basically this whole debate boils down determining whether the author
used a synonym or metaphor.
We had 150 years of wasted ink(fodor) because of this.
> Basically this whole debate boils down determining whether the author
> used a synonym or metaphor.
Yes, that's exactly what real biologists spend most of their time on.
>There is a confusion between a synonym and metaphor.
>
>These are synonyms:
>1) Selection -> Decision
Really? So in your opinion the environment makes actual
decisions regarding which individuals are allowed to
successfully mate? Is that a conscious decision a la Nando?
A hint, Sparky: The selection process requires absolutely
zero input ("decision") from the selector, which is the
environment. The process of selection occurs automatically
via interaction between the individuals undergoing selection
and the environment they inhabit.
>Metaphors as used by Osborne, Matthew, Tyndall, Darwin:
>1) Selection -> Survival.
Nope. Selection is a process; differential mating success,
i.e. differential survival rate of different genotypes, is
the result of that process.
>With preferential as in in preferential decision, I used natural as
>the metaphor for preferential.
You use many terms incorrectly; it's not necessary to point
them out.
>Basically this whole debate boils down determining whether the author
>used a synonym or metaphor.
The author described exactly what he meant. Your inability
to understand what he wrote is irrelevant to that fact.
>We had 150 years of wasted ink(fodor) because of this.
Yep. All from those who refuse to accept evidence because of
contradictory prior beliefs, including those who imagine
incorrectly that a successful challenge to the language used
equates to a successful challenge of the facts. Sound like
anyone you know?