Definition Challenge
topmind
on certain words. What is needed is at least a consensus working
definition for each. The words I've encountered include:
* Fact
* Theory
* Hypothesis
Perhaps there are some other common ones to be suggested.
Good definitions generally are:
* Short: not more than a few paragraphs
* Not tied to votes
* Do you use "wiggle words" such as "almost certainly"
* Do not involve ranking the user or authority source of the
definition. Example, "that only smart people agree on".
* Objective. Two different observers will come to the same conclusion
for a given instance if they apply the definition as stated.
If it is not possible to form clear definitions for these, then I
propose they stopped being used if possible. They will just clog up yet
more debates with "is-too-is-not" loops.
-T-
DougC
topmind wrote:
> Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> on certain words. What is needed is at least a consensus working
> definition for each.
What you are proposing is that all debates be composed of logical
statements and all parties in the debate be dedicated to arriving at
the truth. Don't you realize what a handicap that would be to the
creationists? In effect, if such rules could be enforced, you would
end all debate in this forum.
Doug Chandler
Ernest Major
topmind <top...@technologist.com> writes
unambiguous definitions that apply in all contexts cannot be met.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 02/06/2006
CreateThis
> Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> on certain words. What is needed is at least a consensus working
> definition for each. The words I've encountered include:
>
> * Fact
>
> * Theory
>
> * Hypothesis
Have dictionaries been banned in your country, or only in your so-called
mind?
CT
Desertphile
> Too many debates,
The debates regarding evolution are ended; now all that are left are
debates regarding how evolution works.
> not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> on certain words. What is needed is at least a consensus working
> definition for each. The words I've encountered include:
Get a fucking dictionary, dood, like the rest of us. We do not need you
to be dictating policy.
> * Fact
> * Theory
> * Hypothesis
These exist within a continuum; they are not rungs on a ladder,
seperate and distinct. (Just like biological organisms.)
> Perhaps there are some other common ones to be suggested.
How about "Honesty?" Creationists have a very huge problem with that
one.
> Good definitions generally are:
>
> * Short: not more than a few paragraphs
How about "Lies: what Creationists do."
> * Not tied to votes
Funny how Creationists insist upon popularity driving reality.
> * Do you use "wiggle words" such as "almost certainly"
Science is PREDICATED upon the phrase "Almost certainly." Only
Creationists are certain: scientists admit they may be wrong.
> * Do not involve ranking the user or authority source of the
> definition.
Golly, that would make 99.999% of Creationism go *POOF!* and dissapear.
> Example, "that only smart people agree on".
Just yesterday one of your cult's peers insisted, quoting your paper
god, that wise people are actually fools because they are wise.
> * Objective. Two different observers will come to the same conclusion
> for a given instance if they apply the definition as stated.
Unless one observer is a Creationist, at which point he will reject the
evidence which he can actually see with his own eyes and touch with his
own hands.
> If it is not possible to form clear definitions for these, then I
> propose they stopped being used if possible. They will just clog up yet
> more debates with "is-too-is-not" loops.
Funny how you decry the very behavior you engage in. Tu quoque, eh?
Woland
If only someone would compile some sort of list composed of words and
their meanings,
man that'd be sweet. Maybe they could even put it on the interweb!
Ross Langerak
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1149406012.1...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> on certain words. What is needed is at least a consensus working
> definition for each. The words I've encountered include:
>
> * Fact
>
> * Theory
>
> * Hypothesis
The scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step two is theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
Step three is hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon
a theory.
Step four is experiment. An experiment directly tests an hypothesis.
Notice that there is no mention of facts.
Notice also that this does not use the common definition of "hypothesis".
If you are uncomfortable with this definition, then just call step three a
specific prediction based upon a theory.
And, notice that the scientific method is not an all-encompassing
description of what scientists do. The scientific method is a tool, like
publication is a tool and peer review is a tool.
coaster
topmind wrote:
> Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> on certain words. What is needed is at least a consensus working
> definition for each. The words I've encountered include:
>
> * Fact
>
> * Theory
>
> * Hypothesis
dictionary.reference.com
www.m-w.com
www.onelook.com
www.yourdictionary.com
dictionary.cambridge.org
www.thefreedictionary.com
www.oed.com
www.alphadictionary.com
www.webopedia.com
www.bartleby.com/61
dictionary.msn.com
Was it really that hard?
topmind
Rudeness-objection.
Anyhow, dictionaries often contain the flaws that I oulined. Being in
the dictionary and being clear are not necessarily the same thing.
For example, M-W gives this for fact: "4. a piece of information
presented as having objective reality". It begs the questions
"Presented by who?" and "Is usenet debates a form of presenting"?
>
> CT
-T-
topmind
> topmind wrote:
> Get a fucking dictionary,
Are the non-fucking ones sold out? :-)
> dood, like the rest of us. We do not need you
> to be dictating policy.
I pointed out in another reply why dictionary definitions are often not
sufficient.
>
> > * Fact
> > * Theory
> > * Hypothesis
>
> These exist within a continuum; they are not rungs on a ladder,
> seperate and distinct. (Just like biological organisms.)
Well if we all agreed that they are a continuum, that would solve a lot
of problems in itslef.
>
> > Perhaps there are some other common ones to be suggested.
>
> How about "Honesty?" Creationists have a very huge problem with that
> one.
>
> > Good definitions generally are:
> >
> > * Short: not more than a few paragraphs
>
> How about "Lies: what Creationists do."
>
> > * Not tied to votes
>
> Funny how Creationists insist upon popularity driving reality.
Some versions of science do that same thing. For example, some here
will say something like, "How many scientific journals have presented
or studied that idea?" That is a form of evidence-by-votes also.
(snip)
-T-
Richard Smol
topmind wrote:
> Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> on certain words. What is needed is at least a consensus working
> definition for each. The words I've encountered include:
>
> * Fact
>
> * Theory
>
> * Hypothesis
Those have well-defined meanings that have been explained to you
numerous times. I suspect that you only want to shift the definitions
around to the ones that fit your "reasoning" better, as you have been
trying to do all the time.
RS
Mark VandeWettering
> Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> on certain words.
Particularly when people, like you for instance, insist on creating your
own definitions for words which already have well established meanings,
particularly in the field of science.
> What is needed is at least a consensus working definition for each.
Nonsense. What is needed is that you learn what scientists mean by
these terms, and why these particular definitions have been adopted.
> The words I've encountered include:
>
> * Fact
>
> * Theory
>
> * Hypothesis
>
> Perhaps there are some other common ones to be suggested.
I think it would be good if you learned what these words mean. However,
given that people have patiently explained each of these terms to you,
and you have remained utterly impregnable to their attempts, it seems
pointless to reiterate them here.
> Good definitions generally are:
>
> * Short: not more than a few paragraphs
>
> * Not tied to votes
I find it interesting that you ask for a "consensus working definition",
and yet don't think that this definition should be tied to votes. Perhaps
you could explain how this is to be accomplished.
> * Do you use "wiggle words" such as "almost certainly"
>
> * Do not involve ranking the user or authority source of the
> definition. Example, "that only smart people agree on".
>
> * Objective. Two different observers will come to the same conclusion
> for a given instance if they apply the definition as stated.
>
> If it is not possible to form clear definitions for these, then I
> propose they stopped being used if possible. They will just clog up yet
> more debates with "is-too-is-not" loops.
Good luck with that.
>
> -T-
Tom McDonald
topmind wrote:
> Desertphile wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
<snip>
> > > * Not tied to votes
> >
> > Funny how Creationists insist upon popularity driving reality.
>
> Some versions of science do that same thing. For example, some here
> will say something like, "How many scientific journals have presented
> or studied that idea?" That is a form of evidence-by-votes also.
No, it isn't.
First of all, this is Usenet, not 'some version of science.'
Second, the question you refer to is not a request for a number to be
compared to another number, with the winner being the higher number. It
is a request to show where such and such has been published in a
peer-reviewed venue--or at least published so that it can be read and
evaluated.
Journal publication is not a surety that the article is good, or that
what it contains is Truth. But it does mean that some people who know
something about both the science involved and what makes for a proper
scientific presentation have read, and more often than not had the
article's author(s) clarify and clean up the article.
So if the issue one wishes to push has *no* articles that have gone
through that sort of process, that is a data point wrt the confidence
one can have in the material. Unpublished material can be valid even
when it contradicts numerous peer-reviewed articles. But that's not the
way to bet.
Desertphile
> Desertphile wrote:
> > > * Not tied to votes
> > Funny how Creationists insist upon popularity driving reality.
> Some versions of science do that same thing. For example, some here
> will say something like, "How many scientific journals have presented
> or studied that idea?" That is a form of evidence-by-votes also.
Scientific journals exist to help scientists correct their mistakes:
peers who read submitted papers do not vote on the outcome---- the
mistakes are noted and the paper is sent back to the author for
correction and clarification. It is a very great honor to have one's
paper read by reviewers of a peer-reviewed journal even if and when the
paper is rejected: it shows one's work is thought well enough by one's
peers to merit criticism and correction.
Science is predicated upon hoping, and even begging, someone will take
the time and effort to prove one's hypothesies wrong. Many scientists,
such as researchers in various fields of study, even pay good money to
hire people to prove their hypothesies wrong.
No popularity vote occurs; your analogy is therefore false.
No then. Notice the amazing silence among Creationists when one of
their peers goes even farther into the insane Alice-in-Wonderland world
of Creationism. When a scientist says something silly it often takes a
day or two for other scientists to object to that sillyness. When a
Creationist says something silly, even by Creationists' standards, it
often takes DECADES for the Creationists' peers to step forward and
object.
Which two systems do you think weeds out nonsense better?
CreateThis
> CreateThis wrote:
>
>>topmind wrote:
>>
>>>Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
>>>on certain words. What is needed is at least a consensus working
>>>definition for each. The words I've encountered include:
>>>
>>>* Fact
>>>
>>>* Theory
>>>
>>>* Hypothesis
>>
>>Have dictionaries been banned in your country, or only in your so-called
>>mind?
>
>
> Rudeness-objection.
I don't like clueless-arrogant. Sue me.
> Anyhow, dictionaries often contain the flaws that I oulined. Being in
> the dictionary and being clear are not necessarily the same thing.
>
> For example, M-W gives this for fact: "4. a piece of information
> presented as having objective reality". It begs the questions
> "Presented by who?" and "Is usenet debates a form of presenting"?
No, it doesn't.
One of several definitions in one dictionary is over your head, so you
decide we all need a new definition.
Clueless-arrogant.
CT
Zachriel
> Desertphile wrote:
>> topmind wrote:
>
>> Get a fucking dictionary,
>
> Are the non-fucking ones sold out? :-)
>
>> dood, like the rest of us. We do not need you
>> to be dictating policy.
>
> I pointed out in another reply why dictionary definitions are often not
> sufficient.
A dictionary is not the best source for technical definitions, but it might
be a good place to start.
* hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences.
* theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or
body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
* fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
You're basically claiming that this information is not available to you, but
there is a great deal of literature on the philosophy of science, and how
scientists use empiricism to discover and confirm generalities about the
natural world. You could even read a bit of history to find out how great
scientists have reached their conclusions, and the nature of hypothesis and
empiricism.
I would point out that science requires specificity in its claims. And that
there must be plausible evidence that could call into question such claims.
Your own speculations are not amenable to falsification. There is no
evidence that would cause you to abandon your claims, so your claims are not
science.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
topmind
I would like to point out that the question here is the definition of
science and science-related terms rather than the *strength* of any
given hypothesis. Are you implying that one must search scientific
journals to find good definitions for basic scientific concepts?
-T-
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1149458092....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Desertphile wrote:
> >> topmind wrote:
> >
> >> Get a fucking dictionary,
> >
> > Are the non-fucking ones sold out? :-)
> >
> >> dood, like the rest of us. We do not need you
> >> to be dictating policy.
> >
> > I pointed out in another reply why dictionary definitions are often not
> > sufficient.
>
>
> A dictionary is not the best source for technical definitions, but it might
> be a good place to start.
>
> * hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
> logical or empirical consequences.
I don't find this very precise either. How does one measure
"tentative"?
And, "in order to" implies measuring human motives, which is a
dark-grey art.
> * theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or
> body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
Wiggle words within:
* "plausible"
* "scientifically acceptable"
> * fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
One could present unicorns as having an objective reality. This appears
to imply it is a matter of context, sort of the way a "given" in a
geometry proof is considered a "fact" in the context of the proof.
Whether the givens are actually true or not, is outside the proof's
concern.
However, this context-dependent definition does not make it very useful
as a general declaration, such as saying, "X is a fact" in a absolute
sense.
>
> You're basically claiming that this information is not available to you, but
> there is a great deal of literature on the philosophy of science, and how
> scientists use empiricism to discover and confirm generalities about the
> natural world. You could even read a bit of history to find out how great
> scientists have reached their conclusions, and the nature of hypothesis and
> empiricism.
Yes, but it is mostly a history of occurences, not definitions. I am
saying we need more precise definitions. Telling somebody to read a
history book is not giving a definition.
>
> I would point out that science requires specificity in its claims. And that
> there must be plausible evidence that could call into question such claims.
> Your own speculations are not amenable to falsification. There is no
> evidence that would cause you to abandon your claims, so your claims are not
> science.
If you mean the comparison to SETI, it does not offer any less routes
to abandonment than SETI such that if you disqualify my version of ID
then you must also disqalify SETI by the same criteria. However, there
is a different topic for that and we shouldn't drag that debate into
this one.
I am looking for clear definitions here. Let's apply the defs
elsewhere. I will apply the definitions with care, but first I need
clear ones.
>
> --
> Zachriel
-T-
topmind
> The scientific method is a four step, cyclic method.
>
> Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
>
> Step two is theory. A theory is an explanation for a set of data.
>
> Step three is hypothesis. An hypothesis is a specific prediction based upon
> a theory.
>
> Step four is experiment. An experiment directly tests an hypothesis.
>
> Notice that there is no mention of facts.
>
> Notice also that this does not use the common definition of "hypothesis".
Well I agree that rankings such as "hypothesis" versus "theory" versus
"fact" are not very useful at this point[1], but *some* imply that they
are clear and useful and that I am simply too naive to know that they
are clear.
[1] Evidence strength and support levels appear to be continuous, not
discrete in a Boolean or integer sense. If somebody draws discrete
boundaries as an abstraction/simplification technique, they need to
make them as clear as possible if they want them to be useful.
-T-
topmind
> On 2006-06-04, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> > on certain words.
>
> Particularly when people, like you for instance, insist on creating your
> own definitions for words which already have well established meanings,
> particularly in the field of science.
>
> > What is needed is at least a consensus working definition for each.
>
> Nonsense. What is needed is that you learn what scientists mean by
> these terms, and why these particular definitions have been adopted.
It strongly appears that they use them in an *informal* sense. It is
scientific "street talk" more or less. There is no official or clear
boundary where "theory" becomes "fact". It is just an abbreviated way
to imply the percieved ranking of strengths of ideas.
That is perfectly fine by me. It only becomes a problem when somebody's
argument depends on these strength levels being absolute or clear-cut.
Thus, if they are informal and it is a consensus they are too informal
for precision usage, that would be a big step forward. The definition
should perhaps state that. Example, "An informal way to imply that a
scientific idea is very strong....."
>
> > The words I've encountered include:
> >
> > * Fact
> >
> > * Theory
> >
> > * Hypothesis
> >
> > Perhaps there are some other common ones to be suggested.
>
> I think it would be good if you learned what these words mean. However,
> given that people have patiently explained each of these terms to you,
> and you have remained utterly impregnable to their attempts, it seems
> pointless to reiterate them here.
Because they use *yet more* vague terms to define them. You can't fault
me for objecting due to that, can you? If somebody asks for a
definition of "bad", and you tell them "not good", that is not really
answering the question unless "good" is clearly defined. You just trade
one fuzz for another fuzz.
>
> > Good definitions generally are:
> >
> > * Short: not more than a few paragraphs
> >
> > * Not tied to votes
>
> I find it interesting that you ask for a "consensus working definition",
> and yet don't think that this definition should be tied to votes. Perhaps
> you could explain how this is to be accomplished.
A consensus working definition would be the *consolation prize*, not
the ideal. A clear mutual working definition is usually better than a
fuzzy definition in discussions.
Also, if you tie the definition to votes, that is fine as long as it is
clear that is the criteria. Example: "Fact: when more than 90% of
university professors agree with an idea..."
-T-
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149458092....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Desertphile wrote:
>> >> topmind wrote:
>> >
>> >> Get a fucking dictionary,
>> >
>> > Are the non-fucking ones sold out? :-)
>> >
>> >> dood, like the rest of us. We do not need you
>> >> to be dictating policy.
>> >
>> > I pointed out in another reply why dictionary definitions are often not
>> > sufficient.
>>
>>
>> A dictionary is not the best source for technical definitions, but it
>> might
>> be a good place to start.
>>
>> * hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test
>> its
>> logical or empirical consequences.
>
> I don't find this very precise either. How does one measure
> "tentative"?
Tentative, to accept provisionally.
In science, the hypothesis is used to formulate predictions. Then depending
on the results of testing those predicitons, the hypothesis is either
confirmed, discarded, or modified. That's why it is called "tentative".
>
> And, "in order to" implies measuring human motives, which is a
> dark-grey art.
It has nothing to do with human motives. The process of induction can be
done mechanically.
>
>> * theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or
>> body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
>
> Wiggle words within:
>
> * "plausible"
> * "scientifically acceptable"
As science is an inductive process, that means that assertions are always
considered provisional and judged according to their fit to the evidence.
>
>> * fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
>
> One could present unicorns as having an objective reality.
Then you would be either lying or simply wrong.
> This appears
> to imply it is a matter of context, sort of the way a "given" in a
> geometry proof is considered a "fact" in the context of the proof.
That would not be "scientific fact", which is empirical, that is objective
reality.
> Whether the givens are actually true or not, is outside the proof's
> concern.
>
> However, this context-dependent definition does not make it very useful
> as a general declaration, such as saying, "X is a fact" in a absolute
> sense.
In science, there are no absolutes. Every conclusion is tentative. However,
some matters are so firmly established that not to accept them - at least
provisionally - would be intellectually dishonest.
>
>>
>> You're basically claiming that this information is not available to you,
>> but
>> there is a great deal of literature on the philosophy of science, and how
>> scientists use empiricism to discover and confirm generalities about the
>> natural world. You could even read a bit of history to find out how great
>> scientists have reached their conclusions, and the nature of hypothesis
>> and
>> empiricism.
>
> Yes, but it is mostly a history of occurences, not definitions. I am
> saying we need more precise definitions. Telling somebody to read a
> history book is not giving a definition.
I suggested books on the philosophy of science. I also suggested you
consider how successful scientists apply the scientific method. You want to
pontificate about science, but refuse to learn anything about it
The information is available to you, but you don't really seem to want to
find a useful definition for the purpose of communication. I could be wrong
on this, but every time I give you the benefit of the doubt, you disappoint
me again.
>
>>
>> I would point out that science requires specificity in its claims. And
>> that
>> there must be plausible evidence that could call into question such
>> claims.
>> Your own speculations are not amenable to falsification. There is no
>> evidence that would cause you to abandon your claims, so your claims are
>> not
>> science.
>
> If you mean the comparison to SETI, ...
It has nothing to do with any specific subject. If there is no evidence that
would cause someone to abandon their claims, then their claims are not
science. Please try to grasp this. You do not seem interested in evidence
whatsoever.
--
Zachriel
But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues.
You can tell by the way she smiles. - Dylan
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
> ... it does not offer any less routes
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2006-06-04, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> > Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
>> > on certain words.
>>
>> Particularly when people, like you for instance, insist on creating your
>> own definitions for words which already have well established meanings,
>> particularly in the field of science.
>>
>> > What is needed is at least a consensus working definition for each.
>>
>> Nonsense. What is needed is that you learn what scientists mean by
>> these terms, and why these particular definitions have been adopted.
>
> It strongly appears that they use them in an *informal* sense.
Certainly sometimes they do use them in an informal sense.
That doesn't preclude their being a more rigorous, formal sense for the
terms. Unfortunately, one has to use context to determine which is
which, a talent which, while not difficult, seems to elude people who
post statements like "we need a good definition for 'science'".
> It is scientific "street talk" more or less. There is no official or
> clear boundary where "theory" becomes "fact".
How could there be?
> It is just an abbreviated way
> to imply the percieved ranking of strengths of ideas.
Well, yes.
> That is perfectly fine by me. It only becomes a problem when somebody's
> argument depends on these strength levels being absolute or clear-cut.
Did someone do that? Where? Perhaps a specific example will be useful.
> Thus, if they are informal and it is a consensus they are too informal
> for precision usage, that would be a big step forward.
But they are not "too informal for precision usage". Admitting something
which simply isn't true cannot be seen to be a big step anywhere but
backward.
> The definition
> should perhaps state that. Example, "An informal way to imply that a
> scientific idea is very strong....."
When Gould says that:
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
In what sense is this not implying that a scientific idea is very strong?
>> > The words I've encountered include:
>> >
>> > * Fact
>> >
>> > * Theory
>> >
>> > * Hypothesis
>> >
>> > Perhaps there are some other common ones to be suggested.
>>
>> I think it would be good if you learned what these words mean. However,
>> given that people have patiently explained each of these terms to you,
>> and you have remained utterly impregnable to their attempts, it seems
>> pointless to reiterate them here.
>
> Because they use *yet more* vague terms to define them.
They do use things called "words" to help define them. That you don't
apparently know what these words mean either is not their fault.
> You can't fault
> me for objecting due to that, can you?
Sure I can. You're an idiot, and I suspect that it's a willful choice
to be so.
> If somebody asks for a definition of "bad", and you tell them "not
> good", that is not really answering the question unless "good" is
> clearly defined. You just trade one fuzz for another fuzz.
You can try to play the definition game all you like, if you think it's
a valuable use of your time. It is not a valuable use of other's time
to try to dissuade you from your choice of ignorance.
>> > Good definitions generally are:
>> >
>> > * Short: not more than a few paragraphs
>> >
>> > * Not tied to votes
>>
>> I find it interesting that you ask for a "consensus working definition",
>> and yet don't think that this definition should be tied to votes. Perhaps
>> you could explain how this is to be accomplished.
>
> A consensus working definition would be the *consolation prize*, not
> the ideal.
The meaning of all words are consensus definitions: words mean what people
agree what they do. Definitions don't exist in some ideal universe.
> A clear mutual working definition is usually better than a
> fuzzy definition in discussions.
>
> Also, if you tie the definition to votes, that is fine as long as it is
> clear that is the criteria. Example: "Fact: when more than 90% of
> university professors agree with an idea..."
Why do you think that would be better? Why 90%? Why university professors?
Why is this definition of fact more useful than the scientific one?
Mark
> -T-
topmind
Okay. But this doesn't vary from how I've been using it.
Further, there is no guarentee that a hypoth will be confirmed,
discarded, or modified. These are not requirements to be called a
"hypothesis". Something may stay in hypoth stage forever if more
evidence cannot be found.
> >
> > And, "in order to" implies measuring human motives, which is a
> > dark-grey art.
>
>
> It has nothing to do with human motives. The process of induction can be
> done mechanically.
I suppose it could mean logical induction as found in a university
logic 101 class, but that is not clear from the given wording. And if
it is talking about formal logic, does this mean that something must
use formal logic to be labelled a hypothesis?
>
> >
> >> * theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or
> >> body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
> >
> > Wiggle words within:
> >
> > * "plausible"
> > * "scientifically acceptable"
>
>
> As science is an inductive process, that means that assertions are always
> considered provisional and judged according to their fit to the evidence.
>
You mean "continuous", eh?
>
> >
> >> * fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
> >
> > One could present unicorns as having an objective reality.
>
>
> Then you would be either lying or simply wrong.
I am only testing your definition with case studies. It appears to not
do so well under my unicorn test.
>
> > This appears
> > to imply it is a matter of context, sort of the way a "given" in a
> > geometry proof is considered a "fact" in the context of the proof.
>
>
> That would not be "scientific fact", which is empirical, that is objective
> reality.
Then perhaps it needs a modification such that it no longer implies
contextual scope.
> >> You're basically claiming that this information is not available to you,
> >> but
> >> there is a great deal of literature on the philosophy of science, and how
> >> scientists use empiricism to discover and confirm generalities about the
> >> natural world. You could even read a bit of history to find out how great
> >> scientists have reached their conclusions, and the nature of hypothesis
> >> and
> >> empiricism.
> >
> > Yes, but it is mostly a history of occurences, not definitions. I am
> > saying we need more precise definitions. Telling somebody to read a
> > history book is not giving a definition.
>
>
> I suggested books on the philosophy of science. I also suggested you
> consider how successful scientists apply the scientific method. You want to
> pontificate about science, but refuse to learn anything about it
I have looked into it many times. It appears to be *continuous*, not
discrete. You don't say something *is* science or *is not* science. It
is various degrees. There is strong science, sloppy science, etc.
Same with hypothesis. Unicorns can be a hypothesis, but a weak one. One
talks about the *strength* of a hypothesis, not a Boolean (yes/no)
existence or qualification.
This is what the literature points to overall.
> Zachriel
-T-
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2006-06-17, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2006-06-04, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> > Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> >> > on certain words.
> >>
> >> Particularly when people, like you for instance, insist on creating your
> >> own definitions for words which already have well established meanings,
> >> particularly in the field of science.
> >>
> >> > What is needed is at least a consensus working definition for each.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. What is needed is that you learn what scientists mean by
> >> these terms, and why these particular definitions have been adopted.
> >
> > It strongly appears that they use them in an *informal* sense.
>
> Certainly sometimes they do use them in an informal sense.
> That doesn't preclude their being a more rigorous, formal sense for the
> terms. Unfortunately, one has to use context to determine which is
> which, a talent which, while not difficult, seems to elude people who
> post statements like "we need a good definition for 'science'".
I am sorry, but the implication that science is a feeling and only the
feelings of "qualified" people are allowed to count is Dark Age
authoritarian thinking.
>
> > It is scientific "street talk" more or less. There is no official or
> > clear boundary where "theory" becomes "fact".
>
> How could there be?
If there is not, then people should not talk as if there is.
> > That is perfectly fine by me. It only becomes a problem when somebody's
> > argument depends on these strength levels being absolute or clear-cut.
>
> Did someone do that? Where? Perhaps a specific example will be useful.
Saying that "ID is not a valid hypothesis". This implies it either is
or isn't. If so, one would expect precise tests to determine it either
way rather than a black-box guess from an alleged expert. (Some say it
is disqualified because it is allegedly not testable, but that is
another story.)
>
> > Thus, if they are informal and it is a consensus they are too informal
> > for precision usage, that would be a big step forward.
>
> But they are not "too informal for precision usage". Admitting something
> which simply isn't true cannot be seen to be a big step anywhere but
> backward.
Please clarify.
>
> > The definition
> > should perhaps state that. Example, "An informal way to imply that a
> > scientific idea is very strong....."
>
> When Gould says that:
>
> In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
> that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I
> suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
> possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
>
> In what sense is this not implying that a scientific idea is very strong?
I didn't claim it wasn't. It is an informal, indirect way to say
"strong" such that there is no clear-cut criteria. I've never seen a
Perversometer that gave consistent numeric readings (well, maybe
Scientology has such a gizmo :-)
>
> >> > The words I've encountered include:
> >> >
> >> > * Fact
> >> >
> >> > * Theory
> >> >
> >> > * Hypothesis
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps there are some other common ones to be suggested.
> >>
> >> I think it would be good if you learned what these words mean. However,
> >> given that people have patiently explained each of these terms to you,
> >> and you have remained utterly impregnable to their attempts, it seems
> >> pointless to reiterate them here.
> >
> > Because they use *yet more* vague terms to define them.
>
> They do use things called "words" to help define them. That you don't
> apparently know what these words mean either is not their fault.
Using vague words to define other vague words does not get us very far.
Perhaps an informal meaning, but that is it.
> > If somebody asks for a definition of "bad", and you tell them "not
> > good", that is not really answering the question unless "good" is
> > clearly defined. You just trade one fuzz for another fuzz.
>
> You can try to play the definition game all you like, if you think it's
> a valuable use of your time. It is not a valuable use of other's time
> to try to dissuade you from your choice of ignorance.
I am trying to figure out how you guys think because you have odd ways
to express allegedly scientific concepts. Words are all I have to
figure you out since federal laws forbid me from busting your head open
to reverse engineer your neurons. (Although I am filing a petition to
make an exception for some of you.)
> > A clear mutual working definition is usually better than a
> > fuzzy definition in discussions.
> >
> > Also, if you tie the definition to votes, that is fine as long as it is
> > clear that is the criteria. Example: "Fact: when more than 90% of
> > university professors agree with an idea..."
>
> Why do you think that would be better? Why 90%? Why university professors?
> Why is this definition of fact more useful than the scientific one?
It is a hypothetical example of something measurable objectively to
demonstrate the difference between objective metrics and subjective
ones. If instead it said, "when mostly smart people agree with it",
that is not objectively measurable. Different people following the same
algorithm (attempt) will come to different values.
>
> Mark
>
-T-
Zachriel
No it isn't. Your speculations are usually too vague to make valid
predictions, and when specific are contrary to fact. More importantly, your
assertions are not made for the purposes of empirical testing.
>
> Further, there is no guarentee that a hypoth will be confirmed,
> discarded, or modified. These are not requirements to be called a
> "hypothesis". Something may stay in hypoth stage forever if more
> evidence cannot be found.
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences.
Your speculations are never designed to be tested. You want to pretend they
are "testable", but never subject them to actual testing. You have
demonstrated this over and over again.
>
>> >
>> > And, "in order to" implies measuring human motives, which is a
>> > dark-grey art.
>>
>>
>> It has nothing to do with human motives. The process of induction can be
>> done mechanically.
>
> I suppose it could mean logical induction as found in a university
> logic 101 class, but that is not clear from the given wording.
Practical induction. It's used in computer sciences to solve problems every
day. The point being - as I'm sure you have already lost track - is that "in
order to" has nothing to do with the venality of human motives as you
implied. It has to do with the consistent application of the scientific
method and the purpose of hypothesis. A hypothesis is not just any
assertion. It is an assertion that is reasonably consistent with the current
evidence that is stated for the purpose of (in order to) make specific
predictions for testing.
You have never formed a valid hypothesis because you never mean for your
assertions to be tested. You only want to claim "testable", but never
"tested". This is contrary to science.
> And if
> it is talking about formal logic, does this mean that something must
> use formal logic to be labelled a hypothesis?
>
>>
>> >
>> >> * theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle
>> >> or
>> >> body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
>> >
>> > Wiggle words within:
>> >
>> > * "plausible"
>> > * "scientifically acceptable"
>>
>>
>> As science is an inductive process, that means that assertions are always
>> considered provisional and judged according to their fit to the evidence.
>>
>
> You mean "continuous", eh?
Scientific induction is a continuous process and all conclusions are subject
to revision in the light of new evidence. However, some scientific
conclusions are so well-founded that to refuse to give provisional assent is
intellectually dishonest.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> * fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
>> >
>> > One could present unicorns as having an objective reality.
>>
>>
>> Then you would be either lying or simply wrong.
>
> I am only testing your definition with case studies.
> It appears to not
> do so well under my unicorn test.
Did you say that "Unicorns are fact"? If so, then you are lying or mistaken.
>
>>
>> > This appears
>> > to imply it is a matter of context, sort of the way a "given" in a
>> > geometry proof is considered a "fact" in the context of the proof.
>>
>>
>> That would not be "scientific fact", which is empirical, that is
>> objective
>> reality.
>
> Then perhaps it needs a modification such that it no longer implies
> contextual scope.
The dictionary definition was meant as a starting point. However, you may
use this somewhat simpler definition instead:
fact, a piece of information having objective reality. Facts: germs,
gravity, wind.
>
>> >> You're basically claiming that this information is not available to
>> >> you,
>> >> but
>> >> there is a great deal of literature on the philosophy of science, and
>> >> how
>> >> scientists use empiricism to discover and confirm generalities about
>> >> the
>> >> natural world. You could even read a bit of history to find out how
>> >> great
>> >> scientists have reached their conclusions, and the nature of
>> >> hypothesis
>> >> and
>> >> empiricism.
>> >
>> > Yes, but it is mostly a history of occurences, not definitions. I am
>> > saying we need more precise definitions. Telling somebody to read a
>> > history book is not giving a definition.
>>
>>
>> I suggested books on the philosophy of science. I also suggested you
>> consider how successful scientists apply the scientific method. You want
>> to
>> pontificate about science, but refuse to learn anything about it
>
> I have looked into it many times. It appears to be *continuous*, not
> discrete.
I assume you mean that the process is continuing. If so, then yes, all
scientific conclusions are tentative and subject to revision in the light of
new evidence.
If you mean the boundary between science and non-science is not discrete,
then "continuous" is not the best word. Perhaps you mean the boundary is
"fuzzy" or "chaotic". Nevertheless, some things are well inside the set, and
some things are well outside the set.
> You don't say something *is* science or *is not* science.
Sure you do. Willy-nilly assertions are not science. Personal opinions are
not science. If it has been validated by the scientific method, it can be
said to be scientific.
> It
> is various degrees. There is strong science, sloppy science, etc.
There is a set we call "science". There are things clearly inside the set.
There are things clearly outside the set. There are things on or near the
boundary of the set.
"The Earth moves" is a scientific fact.
"Life evolves" is a scientific fact.
"There is a conventional bitmap of the Mona Lisa in the E. coli genome." is
not a scientific fact and is contrary to the evidence.
"ETI exist" is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
"There are no narrow-band radio signals in the 21cm resonant wavelength
being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars" is a valid scientific
hypothesis.
>
> Same with hypothesis. Unicorns can be a hypothesis, but a weak one.
> One
> talks about the *strength* of a hypothesis, not a Boolean (yes/no)
> existence or qualification.
It's not a hypothesis unless it is reasonably consistent with the evidence
and is asserted for the purposes of empirical testing. For these reasons,
Unicorns and Intelligent Design are not scientific hypotheses. Nor do you
propose your own speculations for the purpose of developing appropriate
tests.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
> This is what the literature points to overall.
The journals are brimming with evidence.
>
>> Zachriel
>
> -T-
>
Zachriel
Now how can you say that? You know that a hypothesis is "a tentative
assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical
consequences". Yet, here you claim that it is irrelevant.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2006-06-17, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> >> On 2006-06-04, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> >> > Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
>> >> > on certain words.
>> >>
>> >> Particularly when people, like you for instance, insist on creating your
>> >> own definitions for words which already have well established meanings,
>> >> particularly in the field of science.
>> >>
>> >> > What is needed is at least a consensus working definition for each.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense. What is needed is that you learn what scientists mean by
>> >> these terms, and why these particular definitions have been adopted.
>> >
>> > It strongly appears that they use them in an *informal* sense.
>>
>> Certainly sometimes they do use them in an informal sense.
>> That doesn't preclude their being a more rigorous, formal sense for the
>> terms. Unfortunately, one has to use context to determine which is
>> which, a talent which, while not difficult, seems to elude people who
>> post statements like "we need a good definition for 'science'".
>
> I am sorry, but the implication that science is a feeling and only the
> feelings of "qualified" people are allowed to count is Dark Age
> authoritarian thinking.
No, the implication (and not a subtle one) is that you are simply stupid.
Words tend to have fairly well defined meanings, meanings which are nearly
always dependent on context. That you refuse to understand this basic
fact is just a reflection of your own anti-intellectualism.
>> > It is scientific "street talk" more or less. There is no official or
>> > clear boundary where "theory" becomes "fact".
>>
>> How could there be?
>
> If there is not, then people should not talk as if there is.
Did someone do that? (I mean other than you?) Really? I'd like you to point out where.
Certainly Gould's definition (which I've promoted as being quite
reasonable and consistent with its use throughout science) doesn't
pretend that there's any official or clear boundary.
>> > That is perfectly fine by me. It only becomes a problem when somebody's
>> > argument depends on these strength levels being absolute or clear-cut.
>>
>> Did someone do that? Where? Perhaps a specific example will be useful.
>
> Saying that "ID is not a valid hypothesis". This implies it either is
> or isn't.
The quote above was discussing the difference between theory and fact,
not hypotheses. You seem quite confused about the differences and
distinctions between them, hopping from arguments about one to arguments
about the other.
An hypothesis is neither a theory, nor a fact: it is a statement
designed to explain certain facts of observations, and is intended to be
tested by experimentation or observation. Whether "ID" (whatever meaning
you wish to assign to it today) is a valid hypothesis is dependent on
whether it is
a) an explanation
or b) intended to be tested by experimentation or observation.
In your arguments, it has proven to be neither, and is therefore
not a valid hypothesis.
(Oh, incidently, I was asking for a specific example, and you didn't
actually provide one.)
> If so, one would expect precise tests to determine it either
> way rather than a black-box guess from an alleged expert.
It doesn't take an expert to understand whether ID is a valid hypothesis
or not. It just requires an understanding of the word "hypothesis".
> (Some say it is disqualified because it is allegedly not testable, but
> that is another story.)
As formulated by you, it isn't testable, or falsifiable.
>> > Thus, if they are informal and it is a consensus they are too informal
>> > for precision usage, that would be a big step forward.
>>
>> But they are not "too informal for precision usage". Admitting something
>> which simply isn't true cannot be seen to be a big step anywhere but
>> backward.
>
> Please clarify.
That you do not understand their precise meaning is not the same as saying
that they do not have a precise meaning. They do have a precise meaning:
to say otherwise is simply false. Asserting false things as true is not
a step forward.
>> > The definition
>> > should perhaps state that. Example, "An informal way to imply that a
>> > scientific idea is very strong....."
>>
>> When Gould says that:
>>
>> In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
>> that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I
>> suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
>> possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
>>
>> In what sense is this not implying that a scientific idea is very strong?
>
> I didn't claim it wasn't. It is an informal, indirect way to say
> "strong" such that there is no clear-cut criteria. I've never seen a
> Perversometer that gave consistent numeric readings (well, maybe
> Scientology has such a gizmo :-)
So what is wrong with Gould's definition?
I feel like I should remind you that Gould is talking about "facts" here,
and not hypotheses. You keep mixing the two.
Autophrenotherapy would likely be a better course of action for you.
>> > A clear mutual working definition is usually better than a
>> > fuzzy definition in discussions.
>> >
>> > Also, if you tie the definition to votes, that is fine as long as it is
>> > clear that is the criteria. Example: "Fact: when more than 90% of
>> > university professors agree with an idea..."
>>
>> Why do you think that would be better? Why 90%? Why university professors?
>> Why is this definition of fact more useful than the scientific one?
>
> It is a hypothetical example of something measurable objectively to
> demonstrate the difference between objective metrics and subjective
> ones.
It's perhaps objective, but not useful. Are arbitrary definitions useful?
> If instead it said, "when mostly smart people agree with it",
> that is not objectively measurable. Different people following the same
> algorithm (attempt) will come to different values.
Most scientists aren't under the delusion that "fact" implies "truth".
Therefore they are quite willing to revisit the factual basis of their
understanding when sufficient evidence warrants it. Before Wegener, the
earth's was thought to be a solid and unshifting: it was perverse to
believe otherwise. The entirely reasonable statement of fact was that
"the earth's crust is a reasonably fixed solid unit". That it happened
not to be actually so doesn't change that.
Mark
topmind
Zachriel wrote:
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1150783325.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1150583620....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Zachriel wrote:
> >> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1149458092....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Desertphile wrote:
> >> >> >> topmind wrote:
> >> >> >
> >>
> >> Tentative, to accept provisionally.
> >>
> >> In science, the hypothesis is used to formulate predictions. Then
> >> depending
> >> on the results of testing those predicitons, the hypothesis is either
> >> confirmed, discarded, or modified. That's why it is called "tentative".
> >>
> >
> > Okay. But this doesn't vary from how I've been using it.
>
>
> No it isn't. Your speculations are usually too vague to make valid
> predictions,
I dispute that they are inharently any vaguer than SETI's.
> and when specific are contrary to fact.
I don't know what you are refering to, but it is probably off this
topic and i've already responded to it elsewhere.
> More importantly, your
> assertions are not made for the purposes of empirical testing.
>
>
> >
> > Further, there is no guarentee that a hypoth will be confirmed,
> > discarded, or modified. These are not requirements to be called a
> > "hypothesis". Something may stay in hypoth stage forever if more
> > evidence cannot be found.
>
>
> hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
> logical or empirical consequences.
>
> Your speculations are never designed to be tested. You want to pretend they
> are "testable", but never subject them to actual testing. You have
> demonstrated this over and over again.
I am not interested in testing (at this point). I'm testing "testable",
not "tested". I don't see that relavent to this discussion anyhow.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> > And, "in order to" implies measuring human motives, which is a
> >> > dark-grey art.
> >>
> >>
> >> It has nothing to do with human motives. The process of induction can be
> >> done mechanically.
> >
> > I suppose it could mean logical induction as found in a university
> > logic 101 class, but that is not clear from the given wording.
>
>
> Practical induction. It's used in computer sciences to solve problems every
> day.
I happen to be a software developer, and English is usually far to
vague to be directly translatable into computer language. It takes
back-and-forth feedback with the requestor. English was not designed
with precision in mind. (English was not designed, period.)
> The point being - as I'm sure you have already lost track - is that "in
> order to" has nothing to do with the venality of human motives as you
> implied. It has to do with the consistent application of the scientific
> method and the purpose of hypothesis. A hypothesis is not just any
> assertion. It is an assertion that is reasonably consistent with the current
> evidence that is stated for the purpose of (in order to) make specific
> predictions for testing.
"Reasonably consistent" is wide open to interpretation and judgement
calls. For example, "some life resembles machines" triggers opinions
all over the map.
>
> You have never formed a valid hypothesis because you never mean for your
> assertions to be tested. You only want to claim "testable", but never
> "tested". This is contrary to science.
Science only allows one-man-bands?
> >> >> * fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
> >> >
> >> > One could present unicorns as having an objective reality.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then you would be either lying or simply wrong.
> >
> > I am only testing your definition with case studies.
> > It appears to not
> > do so well under my unicorn test.
>
>
> Did you say that "Unicorns are fact"? If so, then you are lying or mistaken.
I am pointing out that YOUR definition appears to allow that. I didn't
say I agreed with your definition.
> >> Zachriel
> >
-T-
Marc
That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
(signed) marc
.
Zachriel
>
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150783325.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> > Zachriel wrote:
>> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1150583620....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Zachriel wrote:
>> >> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1149458092....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > Desertphile wrote:
>> >> >> >> topmind wrote:
>> >> >> >
>
>> >>
>> >> Tentative, to accept provisionally.
>> >>
>> >> In science, the hypothesis is used to formulate predictions. Then
>> >> depending
>> >> on the results of testing those predicitons, the hypothesis is either
>> >> confirmed, discarded, or modified. That's why it is called
>> >> "tentative".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Okay. But this doesn't vary from how I've been using it.
>>
>>
>> No it isn't. Your speculations are usually too vague to make valid
>> predictions,
>
> I dispute that they are inharently any vaguer than SETI's.
"ETI exist" is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
"There are no narrow-band radio signals in the 21cm resonant wavelength
being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars" is a valid scientific
hypothesis.
>
>> and when specific are contrary to fact.
>
> I don't know what you are refering to, but it is probably off this
> topic and i've already responded to it elsewhere.
topmind: the "test" suggested was bitmapped images.
>
>
>> More importantly, your
>> assertions are not made for the purposes of empirical testing.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Further, there is no guarentee that a hypoth will be confirmed,
>> > discarded, or modified. These are not requirements to be called a
>> > "hypothesis". Something may stay in hypoth stage forever if more
>> > evidence cannot be found.
>>
>>
>> hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
>> logical or empirical consequences.
>>
>> Your speculations are never designed to be tested. You want to pretend
>> they
>> are "testable", but never subject them to actual testing. You have
>> demonstrated this over and over again.
>
> I am not interested in testing (at this point). I'm testing "testable",
> not "tested". I don't see that relavent to this discussion anyhow.
Then you have not met the definition of a scientific hypothesis, "a
tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or
empirical consequences".
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > And, "in order to" implies measuring human motives, which is a
>> >> > dark-grey art.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It has nothing to do with human motives. The process of induction can
>> >> be
>> >> done mechanically.
>> >
>> > I suppose it could mean logical induction as found in a university
>> > logic 101 class, but that is not clear from the given wording.
>>
>>
>> Practical induction. It's used in computer sciences to solve problems
>> every
>> day.
>
> I happen to be a software developer, ...
Then you should have some idea what induction is and how it is used in the
computer sciences.
> ...and English is usually far to
> vague to be directly translatable into computer language.
Yet, human languages are capable of conveying far more meaning than computer
languages.
> It takes
> back-and-forth feedback with the requestor. English was not designed
> with precision in mind. (English was not designed, period.)
I am quite aware of the limitations of human language. I would like to think
that we are merely having a problem of communicating ideas clearly; however,
you seem to want to use language to avoid communication. For instance, no
matter how many times I post a reasonable definition of hypothesis (and a
willingness to discuss any of its particulars), you continue to insist your
speculation is a valid hypothesis even as you state you are not interested
in testing its "empirical consequences".
>
>> The point being - as I'm sure you have already lost track - is that "in
>> order to" has nothing to do with the venality of human motives as you
>> implied. It has to do with the consistent application of the scientific
>> method and the purpose of hypothesis. A hypothesis is not just any
>> assertion. It is an assertion that is reasonably consistent with the
>> current
>> evidence that is stated for the purpose of (in order to) make specific
>> predictions for testing.
>
> "Reasonably consistent" is wide open to interpretation and judgement
> calls. For example, "some life resembles machines" triggers opinions
> all over the map.
<snip>
As science is an inductive process, that means that assertions are always
considered provisional and judged according to their fit to the evidence.
"Reasonably consistent" is defined by fit to the evidence. If you are
incapable of understanding the fundamentals of scientific induction, then
that would explain why you continue to conflate your speculations with
science.
Zachriel
I've been thinking seriously about your suggestion and I really like
the idea. But there are just so many words. At least several hundred!
I just don't have the time myself. Sorry.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
topmind
One can make an ID version by fartin' around with words the exact same
way.
>
> >
> >> and when specific are contrary to fact.
> >
> > I don't know what you are refering to, but it is probably off this
> > topic and i've already responded to it elsewhere.
>
>
> topmind: the "test" suggested was bitmapped images.
>
I am still not sure what you are referring to. I've proposed 4
different tests, by the way.
>
> >
> >
> >> More importantly, your
> >> assertions are not made for the purposes of empirical testing.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Further, there is no guarentee that a hypoth will be confirmed,
> >> > discarded, or modified. These are not requirements to be called a
> >> > "hypothesis". Something may stay in hypoth stage forever if more
> >> > evidence cannot be found.
> >>
> >>
> >> hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
> >> logical or empirical consequences.
> >>
> >> Your speculations are never designed to be tested. You want to pretend
> >> they
> >> are "testable", but never subject them to actual testing. You have
> >> demonstrated this over and over again.
> >
> > I am not interested in testing (at this point). I'm testing "testable",
> > not "tested". I don't see that relavent to this discussion anyhow.
>
>
> Then you have not met the definition of a scientific hypothesis, "a
> tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or
> empirical consequences".
I am sorry, but I don't see how that definition requires that the
testing must already be started. I've read it 5 times already.
> >> >> > And, "in order to" implies measuring human motives, which is a
> >> >> > dark-grey art.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It has nothing to do with human motives. The process of induction can
> >> >> be
> >> >> done mechanically.
> >> >
> >> > I suppose it could mean logical induction as found in a university
> >> > logic 101 class, but that is not clear from the given wording.
> >>
> >>
> >> Practical induction. It's used in computer sciences to solve problems
> >> every
> >> day.
> >
> > I happen to be a software developer, ...
>
>
> Then you should have some idea what induction is and how it is used in the
> computer sciences.
And your definition is not nearly precise enough to even start to think
about planning to plan to turn it into a computer algorithm. Even the
marketing team can come up with clearer, more usable definitions than
that, and they are a pure ball of emotion.
>
>
> > ...and English is usually far to
> > vague to be directly translatable into computer language.
>
>
> Yet, human languages are capable of conveying far more meaning than computer
> languages.
As far as variety of topics such as descriptions of emotions, yes. As
far as precision, no.
>
>
> > It takes
> > back-and-forth feedback with the requestor. English was not designed
> > with precision in mind. (English was not designed, period.)
>
>
> I am quite aware of the limitations of human language. I would like to think
> that we are merely having a problem of communicating ideas clearly; however,
> you seem to want to use language to avoid communication. For instance, no
> matter how many times I post a reasonable definition of hypothesis (and a
> willingness to discuss any of its particulars), you continue to insist your
> speculation is a valid hypothesis even as you state you are not interested
> in testing its "empirical consequences".
You have not linked it to a required action in a clear-cut fashion. You
are not conveying to me why you interpret it that way. You are not
letting me in on the reasoning process that is taking place in your
mind to take that definition and come to the conclusion that existing
action is required. What is needed is old-fashioned western
reductionalism. Dissect the peices one by one.
>
> >
> >> The point being - as I'm sure you have already lost track - is that "in
> >> order to" has nothing to do with the venality of human motives as you
> >> implied. It has to do with the consistent application of the scientific
> >> method and the purpose of hypothesis. A hypothesis is not just any
> >> assertion. It is an assertion that is reasonably consistent with the
> >> current
> >> evidence that is stated for the purpose of (in order to) make specific
> >> predictions for testing.
> >
> > "Reasonably consistent" is wide open to interpretation and judgement
> > calls. For example, "some life resembles machines" triggers opinions
> > all over the map.
> <snip>
>
>
> As science is an inductive process, that means that assertions are always
> considered provisional and judged according to their fit to the evidence.
> "Reasonably consistent" is defined by fit to the evidence. If you are
> incapable of understanding the fundamentals of scientific induction, then
> that would explain why you continue to conflate your speculations with
> science.
The problem is you, not me. I work well with precision. You give none.
You think your vague feelings are sufficient to be analyzed and
scrutinized and tested, but they are not. You resemble the marketing
department such that I have to use hair-greying trial and error to
finally figure out what the hell they are really thinking because they
are unskilled at turning vauge fuzzy emotional concepts into something
precise enough for a computer to carry out.
>
>
> --
> Zachriel
-T-
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2006-06-20, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2006-06-17, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> >> On 2006-06-04, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Too many debates, not just those that I participate in, get bogged down
> >> >> > on certain words.
> >> >>
> >> >> Particularly when people, like you for instance, insist on creating your
> >> >> own definitions for words which already have well established meanings,
> >> >> particularly in the field of science.
> >> >>
> >> >> > What is needed is at least a consensus working definition for each.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nonsense. What is needed is that you learn what scientists mean by
> >> >> these terms, and why these particular definitions have been adopted.
> >> >
> >> > It strongly appears that they use them in an *informal* sense.
> >>
> >> Certainly sometimes they do use them in an informal sense.
> >> That doesn't preclude their being a more rigorous, formal sense for the
> >> terms. Unfortunately, one has to use context to determine which is
> >> which, a talent which, while not difficult, seems to elude people who
> >> post statements like "we need a good definition for 'science'".
> >
> > I am sorry, but the implication that science is a feeling and only the
> > feelings of "qualified" people are allowed to count is Dark Age
> > authoritarian thinking.
>
> No, the implication (and not a subtle one) is that you are simply stupid.
Well, maybe I am right and you are the stupid. My profession requires
me to know the difference between vague and clear. Perhaps you don't
because your profession pays you regardless of whether you are vague or
clear.
>
> Words tend to have fairly well defined meanings, meanings which are nearly
> always dependent on context. That you refuse to understand this basic
> fact is just a reflection of your own anti-intellectualism.
Even with context they are often vague.
*************************************************
* Good metrics use numbers, not words. *
*************************************************
>
> >> > It is scientific "street talk" more or less. There is no official or
> >> > clear boundary where "theory" becomes "fact".
> >>
> >> How could there be?
> >
> > If there is not, then people should not talk as if there is.
>
> Did someone do that? (I mean other than you?) Really? I'd like you to point out where.
>
> Certainly Gould's definition (which I've promoted as being quite
> reasonable and consistent with its use throughout science) doesn't
> pretend that there's any official or clear boundary.
So it is just YOU who is pretending there is a clear or official
boundary?
>
> An hypothesis is neither a theory, nor a fact: it is a statement
> designed to explain certain facts of observations, and is intended to be
> tested by experimentation or observation. Whether "ID" (whatever meaning
> you wish to assign to it today) is a valid hypothesis is dependent on
> whether it is
>
> a) an explanation
> or b) intended to be tested by experimentation or observation.
>
Why is "intended" in there? Science is not about human motiviations.
Something is not more or less true because of what somebody intends.
Science tests ideas, not human feelings.
How about this working definition:
"Hypothesis is a proposed model of some phenomenon or observation that
can be tested against reality to verify the accuracy of the model."
It does not rely on human motivation issues.
> In your arguments, it has proven to be neither, and is therefore
> not a valid hypothesis.
It uses the same platform as SETI. I agree that SETI is further along,
but that does not appear to be the problem so far.
> >> > Thus, if they are informal and it is a consensus they are too informal
> >> > for precision usage, that would be a big step forward.
> >>
> >> But they are not "too informal for precision usage". Admitting something
> >> which simply isn't true cannot be seen to be a big step anywhere but
> >> backward.
> >
> > Please clarify.
>
> That you do not understand their precise meaning is not the same as saying
> that they do not have a precise meaning. They do have a precise meaning:
> to say otherwise is simply false. Asserting false things as true is not
> a step forward.
Like I said above, my professional experience may be allowing me to
spot vagueness that you can't. Computers cannot readily handle
vagueness so I must clearify something before I can tell the computer
how to handle it.
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > As science is an inductive process, that means that assertions are always
> > considered provisional and judged according to their fit to the evidence.
> > "Reasonably consistent" is defined by fit to the evidence. If you are
> > incapable of understanding the fundamentals of scientific induction, then
> > that would explain why you continue to conflate your speculations with
> > science.
>
> The problem is you, not me. I work well with precision.
That shattering sound you hear is all of talk.origins famous irony
meters simultaneously converting themselves to doorstops.
You have yet to provide any precise empirical observations, hypotheses,
predictions, or tests in several months on this newsgroup.
BJ
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > That you do not understand their precise meaning is not the same as saying
> > that they do not have a precise meaning. They do have a precise meaning:
> > to say otherwise is simply false. Asserting false things as true is not
> > a step forward.
>
> Like I said above, my professional experience may be allowing me to
> spot vagueness that you can't.
Of course, the history of your participation on this newsgroup shows
that you have consistently, clearly, and precisely expounded and
defended your arguments while Mark VandeWettering has contributed
nothing but vague handwaving.
Oh wait, I got those two reversed.... It looks like pretentious,
unfounded arrogance is also on your list of kook qualities.
BJ
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150943623.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Zachriel wrote:
>> >> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1150783325.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Further, there is no guarentee that a hypoth will be confirmed,
>> >> > discarded, or modified. These are not requirements to be called a
>> >> > "hypothesis". Something may stay in hypoth stage forever if more
>> >> > evidence cannot be found.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test
>> >> its
>> >> logical or empirical consequences.
>> >>
>> >> Your speculations are never designed to be tested. You want to pretend
>> >> they
>> >> are "testable", but never subject them to actual testing. You have
>> >> demonstrated this over and over again.
>> >
>> > I am not interested in testing (at this point). I'm testing "testable",
>> > not "tested". I don't see that relavent to this discussion anyhow.
>>
>>
>> Then you have not met the definition of a scientific hypothesis, "a
>> tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or
>> empirical consequences".
>
>
> I am sorry, but I don't see how that definition requires that the
> testing must already be started. I've read it 5 times already.
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences.
The definition doesn't indicate that testing must already be started. It
indicates that the hypothesis is put forth for the purpose of testing. You
have stated that you are "not interested in testing", have never conducted
even the simplest test, and wave your hands at any testing that has already
been done. Hence, your speculations do not constitute a scientific
hypothesis.
>
>
>> >> >> > And, "in order to" implies measuring human motives, which is a
>> >> >> > dark-grey art.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It has nothing to do with human motives. The process of induction
>> >> >> can
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> done mechanically.
>> >> >
>> >> > I suppose it could mean logical induction as found in a university
>> >> > logic 101 class, but that is not clear from the given wording.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Practical induction. It's used in computer sciences to solve problems
>> >> every
>> >> day.
>> >
>> > I happen to be a software developer, ...
>>
>>
>> Then you should have some idea what induction is and how it is used in
>> the
>> computer sciences.
>
> And your definition is not nearly precise enough to even start to think
> about planning to plan to turn it into a computer algorithm.
That is truly classic trolling. I really mean it. I applaud you.
<snip more of the same>
Zachriel
Ok. Don't be shy. I read math. Put your speculation into numbers. Be
specific!
Thank you!
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
SRNissen
Bad Topmind - Don't Nymshift, I'll have to expand my killfile.
--
- SRNissen
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > > The problem is you, not me. I work well with precision.
> >
> > That shattering sound you hear is all of talk.origins famous irony
> > meters simultaneously converting themselves to doorstops.
> >
> > You have yet to provide any precise empirical observations, hypotheses,
> > predictions, or tests in several months on this newsgroup.
> >
> > BJ
>
> Bad Topmind - Don't Nymshift, I'll have to expand my killfile.
While I wouldn't put it past top...@technologist.com to have extended
conversations with himself, I'm moderately sure I'm someone else's
sockpuppet.
Love your work,
BJ
topmind
I only have to be as clear as SETI to make my point. SETI is cowboy
speculation.
-T-
topmind
Science is about testing *human* intentions and motivations? That is
just plain wrong. That is bogus and I don't have to sit here and listen
to such crap. The truth of the universe does not give a flying fudge
about what humans do or want or care about. If science is really about
testing human feelings, and am done here. There is no common ground. I
cannot tell the diff between science and religion if that is the case,
and might as well hang out with Jesus Zealots because their bullshit is
not any less objectively testable than your Human Motivation Science.
I am done here. I must be crazy if that is what science is really
about. Fricken crazy. Somebody here is mad mad mad and I pray to
Darwin that it is not me. Humans again are at the center of the
universe. Beat me with Galalieo's telescope like a mad pope.
> You
> have stated that you are "not interested in testing", have never conducted
> even the simplest test, and wave your hands at any testing that has already
> been done. Hence, your speculations do not constitute a scientific
> hypothesis.
Because I don't do it myself????
>
>
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
For someone who is supposedly trying to make a point about intelligent
design, you sure do dedicate a lot of inches of print to talking about
SETI.
But anyway, in the words of Richard Feynman...
"In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the
war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they
want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to
make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the
runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two
wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo
sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait
for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The
form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But
it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo
cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and
forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something
essential, because the planes don't land."
You practice cargo cult science. You try to go through the motions that
you think other scientists do, but it doesn't work, because something
essential is missing. The planes just keep passing overhead...
Mark
> -T-
Mark VandeWettering
Yes, it is. It is also rather clearly not what he said.
> That is bogus and I don't have to sit here and listen to such crap.
That's certainly true! I urge you to leave forever.
> The truth of the universe does not give a flying fudge
> about what humans do or want or care about. If science is really about
> testing human feelings, and am done here. There is no common ground. I
> cannot tell the diff between science and religion if that is the case,
> and might as well hang out with Jesus Zealots because their bullshit is
> not any less objectively testable than your Human Motivation Science.
>
> I am done here. I must be crazy if that is what science is really
> about. Fricken crazy. Somebody here is mad mad mad and I pray to
> Darwin that it is not me.
Most sane people don't pray to Darwin. He isn't a god, you know.
> Humans again are at the center of the
> universe. Beat me with Galalieo's telescope like a mad pope.
This rant would be more interesting if it had anything to do with what
Zach said.
>> You
>> have stated that you are "not interested in testing", have never conducted
>> even the simplest test, and wave your hands at any testing that has already
>> been done. Hence, your speculations do not constitute a scientific
>> hypothesis.
>
> Because I don't do it myself????
No, because it wasn't formulated in such a way that testing is possible.
Mark
> -T-
SRNissen
I would like to add here, Topmind, that my offer still stands. You can
call me and I'll explain the difference between science and ad-hoc
rationalization real-time where you can interject and ask for
clarifications. 0045-3113-5057
--
- SRNissen
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0625-7, 23-06-2006
Tested on: 26-06-2006 11:21:37
avast! - copyright (c) 2000-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
michael....@gmail.com
I suggest that you test that hypothesis.
M.G.
Zachriel
Huh? Where did you read that? If your assertions can't be used to make valid
empirical predictions, then they not constitute a scientific hypothesis. You
are more than welcome to make any speculative assertions you want. But your
vague and unsupported assertions do not constitute a valid scientific
hypothesis.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
> That is
topmind
"for the purpose of". What the hell is that clause doing in there? Why
does is not say, "...(idea) put forth that can be tested." Or, "put
forth in a way that can be tested". We don't need to say anything about
human intentions. A definition that depends on guessing human
intentions is usually problematic as far as objectivity.
> If your assertions can't be used to make valid
> empirical predictions, then they not constitute a scientific hypothesis. You
> are more than welcome to make any speculative assertions you want. But your
> vague and unsupported assertions do not constitute a valid scientific
> hypothesis.
I thought you agreed that it was testable because you claim it already
sufficiently tested (and allegedly failed the tests).
Something cannot have failed a test and not be testable at the same
time, can it?
>
>
> --
> Zachriel
-T-
topmind
The islanders made a *legitamate* hypothesis. They just happened to be
wrong. From an economic standpoint, one could argue that there were
more frugil ways to test the hypothesis so that intricate props didn't
have to be bult first. But that is an economic question, not a
scientific one.
The actually *did* test their hypothesis that certain buildings and
shapes triggered airplanes. They did science. (Note that if they copied
SOS signals, it may have actually worked once or twice. Thus, it is not
that far fetched.)
It was just an expensive way to go about it. I perfectly agree that
DNA-ID may be a poor expenditure of people's time (SETI also) compared
to other hypoths. But, nobody here has claimed that science is about
economics of human exploration effort.
It is similar to watching a bunch of moths around a street light and
speculating that light is the reason they come. Maybe it is the shape
of the streetlight, or some other reason such as the color. But it is
legit science to try the light theory first. Put up a light and see if
the moths come to it. If not, then go to the shape hypoth next. The
islanders were doing more or less the same thing. Pehaps they picked an
expensive ordering such that an expensive hypoth was done first when it
should have been last, but again that is economics. The islanders did
proper science, but bad economics.
Your scenario backs my viewpoint. Try something different.
>
> Mark
>
-T-
Zachriel
It's an ordering principle. Even a computer algorithm can be said to have
purpose in this respect, so it can be done completely mechanically. An
algorithm puts forth a hypothesis, then tests it against observations of the
world. It then takes the results of this test to modify its hypothesis.
Hence, we can say the algorithm has put forth for the purpose of testing --
even though it is a machine.
In addition, as most hypotheses are put forth by human scientists, then
certainly that is why they propose hypotheses -- to be tested.
You, on the other hand, don't want your assertions to be tested. You just
want to pretend they are "testable".
>
>> If your assertions can't be used to make valid
>> empirical predictions, then they not constitute a scientific hypothesis.
>> You
>> are more than welcome to make any speculative assertions you want. But
>> your
>> vague and unsupported assertions do not constitute a valid scientific
>> hypothesis.
>
> I thought you agreed that it was testable because you claim it already
> sufficiently tested (and allegedly failed the tests).
It shouldn't be necessary to constantly repeat myself.
Most of the time your speculations are so vague as to not constitute a valid
hypothesis. When you are specific, you are just plain wrong. I'm saying
* Your speculations are contrary to known evidence about the genome. (People
have been in and out of the garage all day. You refuse to look, so I
conducted a search at your own insistence. There are no unicorns in the
garage.)
* You don't know anything about the subject you claim to understand. You
claimed (repeatedly, in multiple conversations) that standard statistical
techniques of examining the genome would not have found a Mona Lisa, then
proposed all sorts of very specific tests that would have to be performed to
find one. You were wrong on this and it calls into question your conceptions
about pattern detection and your willingness to actually examine the
evidence and adjust your claims accordingly.)
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
Mark VandeWettering
Fine. Build your bamboo runways, and wait for planes.
Mark
>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> -T-
>
topmind
> >>
> >>
> >> Huh? Where did you read that?
> >
> > "for the purpose of". What the hell is that clause doing in there? Why
> > does is not say, "...(idea) put forth that can be tested." Or, "put
> > forth in a way that can be tested". We don't need to say anything about
> > human intentions. A definition that depends on guessing human
> > intentions is usually problematic as far as objectivity.
>
>
> It's an ordering principle. Even a computer algorithm can be said to have
> purpose in this respect, so it can be done completely mechanically. An
> algorithm puts forth a hypothesis, then tests it against observations of the
> world. It then takes the results of this test to modify its hypothesis.
> Hence, we can say the algorithm has put forth for the purpose of testing --
> even though it is a machine.
Computer algorithms are dumb machines that follow precise deterministic
rules. They don't "care". Now, you could interpret what they do in
terms of human emotions, but such is only useful for *informal*
discussions. We are looking for more exacting definitions to settle
sticky debates, and thus should avoid the common temptation to inject
anthropamorphic views into our definitions.
This is why I suggested "...that can be tested" rather than "...for the
purpose of being tested". Is the second *really* necessary? If so, what
is your justification? If such humanization is not really needed, then
snip that damned thing so we can move on.
>
> In addition, as most hypotheses are put forth by human scientists, then
> certainly that is why they propose hypotheses -- to be tested.
Perhaps, but irrelavent. Science can still be science even if robots do
it.
>
> You, on the other hand, don't want your assertions to be tested. You just
> want to pretend they are "testable".
Even if that was true, I don't see how it is relavent to anything here.
>
>
> >
> >> If your assertions can't be used to make valid
> >> empirical predictions, then they not constitute a scientific hypothesis.
> >> You
> >> are more than welcome to make any speculative assertions you want. But
> >> your
> >> vague and unsupported assertions do not constitute a valid scientific
> >> hypothesis.
> >
> > I thought you agreed that it was testable because you claim it already
> > sufficiently tested (and allegedly failed the tests).
>
>
> It shouldn't be necessary to constantly repeat myself.
>
> Most of the time your speculations are so vague as to not constitute a valid
> hypothesis. When you are specific, you are just plain wrong. I'm saying
I am not asking about me. What were you testing with your Mona script?
>
> * Your speculations are contrary to known evidence about the genome. (People
> have been in and out of the garage all day. You refuse to look, so I
> conducted a search at your own insistence. There are no unicorns in the
> garage.)
The Lone Star Testing Agency, no doubt.
> * You don't know anything about the subject you claim to understand.
Somebody who anthropamorphitizes definitions because they don't know
how to factor out anthro. appears not very bright in my book. Excess
anthropamorphitizing is a sign of amatures, like kids drawing happy
faces on camels.
> Zachriel
-T-
topmind
Like the planes, my reply appears to have flown right over your head.
It is a case of A and B "changing" together by observation from
islanders. The islanders don't know whether A causes B, B causes A, or
there's some other factor C (war) that causes A and B to move together.
One way to find out (perhaps the only way in their shoes) is to test,
and that is exactly what they did. They had a plan to test for one of
these 3 possibilities, and they excercised it.
Whether it was the best test to try first is debatable, but again again
again, that is an economic question, not a scientific one. You people
appear not smart enough to tell the difference. I don't like to accuse
others of being dumb so readily (it makes me sound like my enemies to
spew like that), but at this stage I am running out of models to
explain your goofy lack of reasoning, articulation, and consistency.
> Mark
-T-
Zachriel
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1151813482.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Science is about testing *human* intentions and motivations?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Huh? Where did you read that?
>> >
>> > "for the purpose of". What the hell is that clause doing in there? Why
>> > does is not say, "...(idea) put forth that can be tested." Or, "put
>> > forth in a way that can be tested". We don't need to say anything about
>> > human intentions. A definition that depends on guessing human
>> > intentions is usually problematic as far as objectivity.
>>
>>
>> It's an ordering principle. Even a computer algorithm can be said to have
>> purpose in this respect, so it can be done completely mechanically. An
>> algorithm puts forth a hypothesis, then tests it against observations of
>> the
>> world. It then takes the results of this test to modify its hypothesis.
>> Hence, we can say the algorithm has put forth for the purpose of
>> testing --
>> even though it is a machine.
>
> Computer algorithms are dumb machines that follow precise deterministic
> rules. They don't "care".
"care" is not in the definition. However, "order" is.
hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences
A machine is more than capable of following the cyclical process of putting
forth tentative assumptions, followed by testing.
> Now, you could interpret what they do in
> terms of human emotions, but such is only useful for *informal*
> discussions. We are looking for more exacting definitions to settle
> sticky debates, and thus should avoid the common temptation to inject
> anthropamorphic views into our definitions.
No, what you are trying to do is avoid definitions because you have to
redefine hypothesis so that you can pretend to have presented a scientific
hypothesis.
>
> This is why I suggested "...that can be tested" rather than "...for the
> purpose of being tested". Is the second *really* necessary? If so, what
> is your justification? If such humanization is not really needed, then
> snip that damned thing so we can move on.
Sorry, not sufficient. You will continue to handwave "testable". Try to
concentrate on the last two words of the definition. The clue is there.
hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences
>
>>
>> In addition, as most hypotheses are put forth by human scientists, then
>> certainly that is why they propose hypotheses -- to be tested.
>
> Perhaps, but irrelavent. Science can still be science even if robots do
> it.
>
>>
>> You, on the other hand, don't want your assertions to be tested. You just
>> want to pretend they are "testable".
>
> Even if that was true, I don't see how it is relavent to anything here.
Because you say your claims are "testable" when they are too vague to
constitute a valid hypothesis. There have to be specific empricial
consequences that can be subjected to specific tests.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> If your assertions can't be used to make valid
>> >> empirical predictions, then they not constitute a scientific
>> >> hypothesis.
>> >> You
>> >> are more than welcome to make any speculative assertions you want. But
>> >> your
>> >> vague and unsupported assertions do not constitute a valid scientific
>> >> hypothesis.
>> >
>> > I thought you agreed that it was testable because you claim it already
>> > sufficiently tested (and allegedly failed the tests).
>>
>>
>> It shouldn't be necessary to constantly repeat myself.
>>
>> Most of the time your speculations are so vague as to not constitute a
>> valid
>> hypothesis. When you are specific, you are just plain wrong. I'm saying
>
> I am not asking about me. What were you testing with your Mona script?
Zachriel: "If there was a bit-map of the Mona Lisa within the human genome,
there is a very high probability it would have been noticed because it would
stick out like a statistical sore thumb."
topmind: :I am skeptical of that. Can you provide a demonstration?"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/54477866a2f984f2
topmind
That's you, not me.
Either being a scientific hypothesis is CONTINUIOUS or DISCRETE. It
cannot both.
IF continuous THEN
Saying something is or is not a valid sci hypoth is meaningless
ELSE
There are discrete criteria
END
Which one do you chose, and if the second, where are the descrete
criteria? You imply that one weighs the paperwork generated by people
declared as "scientists" to determine if something is valid SH.
I can't get any precision out of youses. It is always handwaving.
Wavity Wavity Wavity. Something is very wrong. Science appears to be
turning into a social club where precision is no longer important and
"because I said so and I am smart" is good enough (this is called the
fallacy of Ad Verecundiam in formal debate.)
-T-
topmind
Show me SETI's, and I shall clone their technique.
If SETI ain't need one to be a "scientific hypothesis", then why should
DNA-ID. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> --
> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
-T-
Zachriel
>> > > That you do not understand their precise meaning is not the same as
>> > > saying
>> > > that they do not have a precise meaning. They do have a precise
>> > > meaning:
>> > > to say otherwise is simply false. Asserting false things as true is
>> > > not
>> > > a step forward.
>> >
>> > Like I said above, my professional experience may be allowing me to
>> > spot vagueness that you can't.
>>
>> Of course, the history of your participation on this newsgroup shows
>> that you have consistently, clearly, and precisely expounded and
>> defended your arguments while Mark VandeWettering has contributed
>> nothing but vague handwaving.
>>
>> Oh wait, I got those two reversed.... It looks like pretentious,
>> unfounded arrogance is also on your list of kook qualities.
>>
>
> That's you, not me.
>
> Either being a scientific hypothesis is CONTINUIOUS or DISCRETE. It
> cannot both.
You left out a category or two. Some sets have fuzzy or chaotic boundaries.
Hence, some things may be well within the set. Some things may be well
outside the set. Yet the border can be indistinct or poorly delineated. If
you avoid these border regions, then discrete statements suitable for
logical rigor can be made.
"The Earth moves" is a scientific fact.
"Life evolves" is a scientific fact.
"There is a conventional bitmap of the Mona Lisa in the E. coli genome." is
not a scientific fact and is contrary to the evidence.
"ETI exist" is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
"There are no narrow-band radio signals in the 21cm resonant wavelength
being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars" is a valid scientific
hypothesis.
>
> IF continuous THEN
> Saying something is or is not a valid sci hypoth is meaningless
> ELSE
> There are discrete criteria
> END
>
> Which one do you chose, and if the second, where are the descrete
> criteria? You imply that one weighs the paperwork generated by people
> declared as "scientists" to determine if something is valid SH.
>
> I can't get any precision out of youses.
Not true. You just don't want to accept it because it conflicts with your
other deeply held beliefs. I'm sorry the world is messy, but that's the
world we observe.
> It is always handwaving.
> Wavity Wavity Wavity. Something is very wrong. Science appears to be
> turning into a social club where precision is no longer important and
> "because I said so and I am smart" is good enough (this is called the
> fallacy of Ad Verecundiam in formal debate.)
Expert opinion is a very valuable resource and is not considered a fallacy
(assuming certain conditions are met).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Zachriel
"There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength being
emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
>
> If SETI ain't need one to be a "scientific hypothesis", then why should
> DNA-ID. You cannot have it both ways.
Your turn.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
>
>>
topmind
> <please quit snipping the headers>
>
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1151813482.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Science is about testing *human* intentions and motivations?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh? Where did you read that?
> >> >
> >> > "for the purpose of". What the hell is that clause doing in there? Why
> >> > does is not say, "...(idea) put forth that can be tested." Or, "put
> >> > forth in a way that can be tested". We don't need to say anything about
> >> > human intentions. A definition that depends on guessing human
> >> > intentions is usually problematic as far as objectivity.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's an ordering principle. Even a computer algorithm can be said to have
> >> purpose in this respect, so it can be done completely mechanically. An
> >> algorithm puts forth a hypothesis, then tests it against observations of
> >> the
> >> world. It then takes the results of this test to modify its hypothesis.
> >> Hence, we can say the algorithm has put forth for the purpose of
> >> testing --
> >> even though it is a machine.
> >
> > Computer algorithms are dumb machines that follow precise deterministic
> > rules. They don't "care".
>
>
> "care" is not in the definition. However, "order" is.
"In order to" is synomymous with "for the purpose of". Thus, it implies
a *purpose* is needed. This is where fire starts.
>
> hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
> logical or empirical consequences
>
> A machine is more than capable of following the cyclical process of putting
> forth tentative assumptions, followed by testing.
This is not the same thing as the original def. The robot does not
necessarily have a "purpose" in doing such there. Or at least, there is
not discrete way to test "purpose". What if the robot accidently "put
forth" a hypoth?
> > This is why I suggested "...that can be tested" rather than "...for the
> > purpose of being tested". Is the second *really* necessary? If so, what
> > is your justification? If such humanization is not really needed, then
> > snip that damned thing so we can move on.
>
>
> Sorry, not sufficient. You will continue to handwave "testable". Try to
> concentrate on the last two words of the definition. The clue is there.
No no no no. You are mixing up too different things. Let's try this
def:
"A tentative assumption made which has logical or
empirical consequences which can be tested."
This is only about traits of the hypothesis, not the intentions of the
proposer, unlike your anthropomorphic definition.
I made sure it has "testable" in it. Now, what is your compaint about
this one?
I think your guys' problem is that you think of science as a group of
scientifically-ordained decision makers around a round table, and not a
process.
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
Got a big pile of bamboo ready?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>> > > that they do not have a precise meaning. They do have a precise meaning:
>> > > to say otherwise is simply false. Asserting false things as true is not
>> > > a step forward.
>> >
>> > Like I said above, my professional experience may be allowing me to
>> > spot vagueness that you can't.
>>
>> Of course, the history of your participation on this newsgroup shows
>> that you have consistently, clearly, and precisely expounded and
>> defended your arguments while Mark VandeWettering has contributed
>> nothing but vague handwaving.
>>
>> Oh wait, I got those two reversed.... It looks like pretentious,
>> unfounded arrogance is also on your list of kook qualities.
>>
>
> That's you, not me.
>
> Either being a scientific hypothesis is CONTINUIOUS or DISCRETE. It
> cannot both.
>
> IF continuous THEN
> Saying something is or is not a valid sci hypoth is meaningless
> ELSE
> There are discrete criteria
> END
Wow. Babble.
> Which one do you chose, and if the second, where are the descrete
> criteria? You imply that one weighs the paperwork generated by people
> declared as "scientists" to determine if something is valid SH.
Can you please try to learn how to spell the word "discrete"?
topmind
We've been over this already. I proposed a Prime Number detection
algorithm, but somebody wanted more details. I explained that I would
provide details only when lack of an existing computerizable algorithm
was the only consensus difference keeping it from being a scientific
hypoth.
>
>
-T-
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2006-07-02, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> > > That you do not understand their precise meaning is not the same as saying
> >> > > that they do not have a precise meaning. They do have a precise meaning:
> >> > > to say otherwise is simply false. Asserting false things as true is not
> >> > > a step forward.
> >> >
> >> > Like I said above, my professional experience may be allowing me to
> >> > spot vagueness that you can't.
> >>
> >> Of course, the history of your participation on this newsgroup shows
> >> that you have consistently, clearly, and precisely expounded and
> >> defended your arguments while Mark VandeWettering has contributed
> >> nothing but vague handwaving.
> >>
> >> Oh wait, I got those two reversed.... It looks like pretentious,
> >> unfounded arrogance is also on your list of kook qualities.
> >>
> >
> > That's you, not me.
> >
> > Either being a scientific hypothesis is CONTINUIOUS or DISCRETE. It
> > cannot both.
> >
> > IF continuous THEN
> > Saying something is or is not a valid sci hypoth is meaningless
> > ELSE
> > There are discrete criteria
> > END
>
> Wow. Babble.
How so? I thought I made it pretty clear.
>
> > Which one do you chose, and if the second, where are the descrete
> > criteria? You imply that one weighs the paperwork generated by people
> > declared as "scientists" to determine if something is valid SH.
>
> Can you please try to learn how to spell the word "discrete"?
Are you afraid of potentially beneficial lexical mutations? Your
ancestors grew from worms into mammals due to mutations. They are your
friend :-)
-T-
topmind
Well, what exactly are these clear borders then?
[snip]
> "ETI exist" is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
> "There are no narrow-band radio signals in the 21cm resonant wavelength
> being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars" is a valid scientific
> hypothesis.
Well this is just a word game. One can do the same with DNA-ID, such as
making an algorithm to find sequential Prime digits of certain lengths.
>
>
> >
> > IF continuous THEN
> > Saying something is or is not a valid sci hypoth is meaningless
> > ELSE
> > There are discrete criteria
> > END
> >
> > Which one do you chose, and if the second, where are the descrete
> > criteria? You imply that one weighs the paperwork generated by people
> > declared as "scientists" to determine if something is valid SH.
> >
> > I can't get any precision out of youses.
>
>
> Not true. You just don't want to accept it because it conflicts with your
> other deeply held beliefs.
You appear to be describing yourself. Given precision, I can process it
just fine.
> I'm sorry the world is messy, but that's the
> world we observe.
>
>
> > It is always handwaving.
> > Wavity Wavity Wavity. Something is very wrong. Science appears to be
> > turning into a social club where precision is no longer important and
> > "because I said so and I am smart" is good enough (this is called the
> > fallacy of Ad Verecundiam in formal debate.)
>
>
> Expert opinion is a very valuable resource and is not considered a fallacy
> (assuming certain conditions are met).
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
>
Many of yourses citations appear to fit this example:
Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a
woman should have a right to her own body."
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is
always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right,
after all, he is a respected expert in his field."
Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"
Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on
cold fusion."
Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"
Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."
For example, what makes Jay Gould an expert on scientific
*definitions*? Being an expert on biology may not alone qualify him.
One has to spend time analyzing and comparing candidate definitions
through the ages and be knowledgable about their strengths and
weaknesses and know the arguments for and against the various
candidates.
It is almost like saying that anyone who uses a microscope throughout
their career is an expert in microscopes merely by familiarity and
association.
I doubt he ever gave "in order to" much thought. It was an informal
statement on his part, not meant for heavy scrutiny. Yet, you turn it
into the Bible.
>
>
> --
> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
Yes, but as we've established beyond any reasonable doubt, you are
incompetent to actually judge your own competency. You suffer from
delusions of intellectual adequacy.
Mark
topmind
What is this in reference to? The Cargo Cult issue? Have you seen my
Sat, Jul 1 2006 9:24 pm reply on the subject?
>
> Mark
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> Zachriel wrote:
> > > Show me SETI's, and I shall clone their technique.
> >
> > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength being
> > emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
>
> We've been over this already. I proposed a Prime Number detection
> algorithm, but somebody wanted more details. I explained that I would
> provide details only when lack of an existing computerizable algorithm
> was the only consensus difference keeping it from being a scientific
> hypoth.
It was explained to you, at that time and many others, that a
scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations and make
testable predictions of a level of specificity such that failure of the
predictions would falsify the hypothesis. You have not specified an
hypothesis that would be falsified by failure to find prime numbers in
the genome after an exhaustive search. In fact, you have not specified
an hypothesis that would explain why prime numbers should be expected
in the genome, how they would be encoded, or which genome or genomes
they would be found in.
"Gee, maybe there are patterns in DNA." is not a scientific hypothesis,
regardless of how many baseless algorithms you make up.
BJ
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> I can't get any precision out of youses. It is always handwaving.
Yet again you cross the line from ignorance to dishonesty. The
criteria for a theory or hypothesis has been repeatedly explained to
you by numerous posters in this thread. To be considered scientific, a
theory must explain empirical observations. It must make testable
predictions. Those predictions must be precise enough that failure of
the predictions falsifies the theory.
What is the scientific hypothesis of intelligent design?
BJ
Zachriel
Ok. Let's see if you will do what you say you would.
>>
>>
>> "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength
>> being
>> emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
>>
>
> We've been over this already. I proposed a Prime Number detection
> algorithm, but somebody wanted more details. I explained that I would
> provide details only when lack of an existing computerizable algorithm
> was the only consensus difference keeping it from being a scientific
> hypoth.
Ah, it's a secret hypothesis.
>
>>
>>
>
> -T-
>
--
Zachriel
"When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours..."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/beauty-is-truth.html
Mark VandeWettering
Yes. It was exactly what I expected. Keep talking into the coconut.
Mark
>> Mark
>
> -T-
>
Mark VandeWettering
Really? Which ones?
> Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion:
> Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a
> woman should have a right to her own body."
> Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is
> always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right,
> after all, he is a respected expert in his field."
> Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"
> Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on
> cold fusion."
> Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"
> Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."
Nobody is the authority over whether abortion is morally wrong.
What this has to do with any of the above discussion is only something
that your scattered brain can determine.
> For example, what makes Jay Gould an expert on scientific
> *definitions*? Being an expert on biology may not alone qualify him.
> One has to spend time analyzing and comparing candidate definitions
> through the ages and be knowledgable about their strengths and
> weaknesses and know the arguments for and against the various
> candidates.
If you'd like to demonstrate that there is significant disagreement
amongst the scientific community regarding the definition of fact, you
could challenge his definition on that basis. Whether he is an expert
on definitions, or biology, or whatever doesn't matter an iota: he's
correct, and nothing, NOTHING that you have said raises any serious
challenge to it.
> It is almost like saying that anyone who uses a microscope throughout
> their career is an expert in microscopes merely by familiarity and
> association.
Gould's qualifications (stellar as they are) are irrelevent. The only
person bringing them up is you. People accept Gould's definition because
it is consistent to the usage of scientists everywhere.
> I doubt he ever gave "in order to" much thought. It was an informal
> statement on his part, not meant for heavy scrutiny. Yet, you turn it
> into the Bible.
Hypotheses aren't atoms: they don't exist except as theoretical concepts
in the minds of humans. They are formulated to test certain ideas. Nobody
else seems to find that as deeply sinister as you do.
Mark
topmind
> > >
> > > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength being
> > > emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
> >
> > We've been over this already. I proposed a Prime Number detection
> > algorithm, but somebody wanted more details. I explained that I would
> > provide details only when lack of an existing computerizable algorithm
> > was the only consensus difference keeping it from being a scientific
> > hypoth.
>
> It was explained to you, at that time and many others, that a
> scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations and make
> testable predictions of a level of specificity such that failure of the
> predictions would falsify the hypothesis.
As much as SETI hypoth.
>You have not specified an
> hypothesis that would be falsified by failure to find prime numbers in
> the genome after an exhaustive search.
As much as SETI hypoth..
> In fact, you have not specified
> an hypothesis that would explain why prime numbers should be expected
> in the genome,
As much as SETI hypoth..
> how they would be encoded,
Those details will come with the algorithm.
> or which genome or genomes
> they would be found in.
Huh? Why is this necessary? It sounds like another one of your
artificial fake phoney made-up hurdles.
>
> "Gee, maybe there are patterns in DNA." is not a scientific hypothesis,
> regardless of how many baseless algorithms you make up.
It is simply SETI done in DNA instead of the stars. It is not
materially different and you have not found The Magic Separator. It is
probably less likely than SETI, but nobody here is proposing
probability being the key criteria. It is also not as far along as
SETI, but questions about at which point SETI's hypoth turned into
science in its history result in blank drooling stares and handwaving.
You have no basis for your phoney made-up criteria. You simply call me
dumb and elect yourself smart and think that is sufficient. Crank up
your articulation skills and turn down your ego and we may get
somewhere.
-T-
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > It was explained to you, at that time and many others, that a
> > scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations and make
> > testable predictions of a level of specificity such that failure of the
> > predictions would falsify the hypothesis.
>
> As much as SETI hypoth.
This sentence fragment conveys no meaning. Assuming that you meant to
say something about the hypothesis being tested by the SETI
radiotelescope project, Zachriel provided a concise summary in the
material you quoted just a few lines above:
> > > > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant
> > > > wavelength being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
> >You have not specified an
> > hypothesis that would be falsified by failure to find prime numbers in
> > the genome after an exhaustive search.
>
> As much as SETI hypoth..
Another sentence fragment with no discernable meaning. Re-read
Zachriel's statement of the hypothesis being tested by the SETI
radiotelescope project and, if you are capable, produce a scientific
hypothesis of intelligent design.
If you're not capable, have the common decency to admit that.
> > In fact, you have not specified
> > an hypothesis that would explain why prime numbers should be expected
> > in the genome,
>
> As much as SETI hypoth..
Yet again, you have been provided with references to the material
explaining the empirical observations that lead to the hypothesis being
tested by the SETI radiotelescope project.
What is the scientific hypothesis of intelligent design that predicts
that prime numbers will be found in a genome?
> > how they would be encoded,
>
> Those details will come with the algorithm.
No, as has been repeatedly explained to you, the hypothesis must be
specific enough to predict exactly what would be found and where it
would be found if the hypothesis were correct. Failure of the
prediction then falsifies the hypothesis.
> > or which genome or genomes
> > they would be found in.
>
> Huh? Why is this necessary? It sounds like another one of your
> artificial fake phoney made-up hurdles.
A scientific hypothesis must be specific enough to predict exactly what
would be found and where it would be found if the hypothesis were
correct. Failure of the prediction then falsifies the hypothesis.
> > "Gee, maybe there are patterns in DNA." is not a scientific hypothesis,
> > regardless of how many baseless algorithms you make up.
>
> It is simply SETI done in DNA instead of the stars.
No, it is a vague speculation that makes no testable predictions.
> It is not
> materially different and you have not found The Magic Separator.
We're discussing science, not magic. Your vague speculations are not
testable nor do they constitute a falsifiable hypothesis. That is what
distinguishes science from non-science.
This has been explained to you repeatedly. Your continued failure to
grasp it is indicative of either profound intellectual limitations or
gross dishonesty on your part.
BJ
topmind
> topmind wrote:
> > Zachriel wrote:
> > > > Show me SETI's, and I shall clone their technique.
> > >
> > > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant wavelength being
> > > emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
> >
> > We've been over this already. I proposed a Prime Number detection
> > algorithm, but somebody wanted more details. I explained that I would
> > provide details only when lack of an existing computerizable algorithm
> > was the only consensus difference keeping it from being a scientific
> > hypoth.
>
> It was explained to you, at that time and many others, that a
> scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations and make
> testable predictions of a level of specificity such that failure of the
> predictions would falsify the hypothesis. You have not specified an
> hypothesis that would be falsified by failure to find prime numbers in
> the genome after an exhaustive search. In fact, you have not specified
> an hypothesis that would explain why prime numbers should be expected
> in the genome, how they would be encoded, or which genome or genomes
> they would be found in.
I worded one very similar to your take on SETI's hypoth. IIRC, the
complaint was then youses wanted to see the specific algorithm, which
takes us back to the above.
>
> "Gee, maybe there are patterns in DNA." is not a scientific hypothesis,
> regardless of how many baseless algorithms you make up.
>
-T-
topmind
Where is your survey that they just rolled over and accepted them at
face value? You are making crap up out of thin air again.
If "hypothesis" is truly about measuring human motives, then all my
education was wrong, and I am indeed [bleeped] in the head and should
be burried next to Terri Shivo here and now.
All my education and reading told me that science needed to distance
itself from human motives and feelings as much as possible to avoid
bias, AKA, outcome favoritism.
I think Gould knows this, but was just writing in a colloquial way.
>
> > I doubt he ever gave "in order to" much thought. It was an informal
> > statement on his part, not meant for heavy scrutiny. Yet, you turn it
> > into the Bible.
>
> Hypotheses aren't atoms: they don't exist except as theoretical concepts
> in the minds of humans. They are formulated to test certain ideas. Nobody
> else seems to find that as deeply sinister as you do.
That may be what we use them for, but that does not mean the purpose
itself is or should be part of the definition. Mixing human emotions
into formal science definitions for no reason is just plain stupid,
period. A robot with no sense of purpose can do science also.
Anyhow, what about my suggested re-work?:
"A tentative assumption made which has logical or
empirical consequences which can be tested."
Do you have any specific problems with it?
>
> Mark
>
-T-
topmind
> > > > > wavelength being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
>
> What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
There are no repeating sequential digits of primes more than 500 in
digit length in DNA found in earthly species.
We can add other algorithms in there also (analogous to SETI searching
for laser signals). I am just keeping it simple for you simpletons for
now.
> What is the scientific hypothesis of intelligent design that predicts
> that prime numbers will be found in a genome?
>
> > > how they would be encoded,
> >
> > Those details will come with the algorithm.
>
> No, as has been repeatedly explained to you, the hypothesis must be
> specific enough to predict exactly what would be found and where it
> would be found if the hypothesis were correct. Failure of the
> prediction then falsifies the hypothesis.
What do you mean by "where"? SETI doesn't specify where, except where
they are limited based on instrument/detection limitations.
We are limiting the DNA to earth species because we don't have the
budget to go looking on other planets. SETI would also love to send
antenna's to Vega etc.
>
> > > or which genome or genomes
> > > they would be found in.
> >
> > Huh? Why is this necessary? It sounds like another one of your
> > artificial fake phoney made-up hurdles.
>
> A scientific hypothesis must be specific enough to predict exactly what
> would be found and where it would be found if the hypothesis were
> correct. Failure of the prediction then falsifies the hypothesis.
Again, please clarify this "where" stuff, and show where it comes from
in definitions of hypothesis.
>
> > > "Gee, maybe there are patterns in DNA." is not a scientific hypothesis,
> > > regardless of how many baseless algorithms you make up.
> >
> > It is simply SETI done in DNA instead of the stars.
>
> No, it is a vague speculation that makes no testable predictions.
It can be made as specific as SETI's.
-T-
Zachriel
>> > > > > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant
>> > > > > wavelength being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
>>
>> What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
>
>
> There are no repeating sequential digits of primes more than 500 in
> digit length in DNA found in earthly species.
Did you mean Pi? Otherwise your statement doesn't make sense.
As has been pointed out previously: There are an infinite number of possible
encoding schemes. Your assertion is much too vague for testing.
Perhaps you mean a base-4 representation. Is that what you mean?
Deadrat
news:1152035773.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
So you claim. Again. And yet you can't do it, you can't point to anyone
who can.
Deadrat
>
> -T-
>
>
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > > We've been over this already. I proposed a Prime Number detection
> > > algorithm, but somebody wanted more details. I explained that I would
> > > provide details only when lack of an existing computerizable algorithm
> > > was the only consensus difference keeping it from being a scientific
> > > hypoth.
> >
> > It was explained to you, at that time and many others, that a
> > scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations and make
> > testable predictions of a level of specificity such that failure of the
> > predictions would falsify the hypothesis. You have not specified an
> > hypothesis that would be falsified by failure to find prime numbers in
> > the genome after an exhaustive search. In fact, you have not specified
> > an hypothesis that would explain why prime numbers should be expected
> > in the genome, how they would be encoded, or which genome or genomes
> > they would be found in.
>
> I worded one very similar to your take on SETI's hypoth.
No, you merely rephrased "Maybe some alien did something at some point
in time for some unknown reason to cause some unspecified pattern to
appear in some DNA somewhere." in different but equally uninteresting
ways.
> IIRC, the complaint was then youses wanted to see the specific algorithm
Then your memory is as poor as your understanding of science. You have
not articulated a scientific hypothesis that explains any empirical
observations or that makes any specific, testable predictions that
could serve to falsify it. Until you produce such an hypothesis, any
algorithms you suggest are as baseless as your speculations.
BJ
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > > > > > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant
> > > > > > wavelength being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
> >
> > What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
>
> There are no repeating sequential digits of primes more than 500 in
> digit length in DNA found in earthly species.
Does it hurt when you hold those coconut shells so tightly to your
ears?
Once again, a scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations
and must form the basis for testable predictions, the inaccuracy of
which would serve to falsify the hypothesis. The SETI researchers have
justified their investigation of the radio spectrum in general and the
particular wavelengths selected in particular based on empirical
observations of human technology and knowledge of physics.
What empirical observations does your non-hypothesis purport to
explain? What justification do you have for searching DNA? Why would
prime numbers be expected? How would they be encoded?
> We can add other algorithms in there also
You can add anything. That's an advantage vague speculations have over
rigorous scientific hypotheses.
> > What is the scientific hypothesis of intelligent design that predicts
> > that prime numbers will be found in a genome?
> >
> > > > how they would be encoded,
> > >
> > > Those details will come with the algorithm.
> >
> > No, as has been repeatedly explained to you, the hypothesis must be
> > specific enough to predict exactly what would be found and where it
> > would be found if the hypothesis were correct. Failure of the
> > prediction then falsifies the hypothesis.
>
> What do you mean by "where"? SETI doesn't specify where, except where
> they are limited based on instrument/detection limitations.
The SETI radiotelescope project is looking in a very specific region of
the electromagnetic spectrum for reasons based on physics. They
clearly specify the type of signal they are looking for, and justify
that choice. What is the justification for looking in DNA? Will any
DNA do or only that of particular species? What kind of signal is
predicted? How would it be encoded? How exactly do the empirical
observations you are attempting to explain lead to those answers?
> > > > or which genome or genomes
> > > > they would be found in.
> > >
> > > Huh? Why is this necessary? It sounds like another one of your
> > > artificial fake phoney made-up hurdles.
> >
> > A scientific hypothesis must be specific enough to predict exactly what
> > would be found and where it would be found if the hypothesis were
> > correct. Failure of the prediction then falsifies the hypothesis.
>
> Again, please clarify this "where" stuff, and show where it comes from
> in definitions of hypothesis.
To be considered science, your non-hypothesis must result in
predictions that are specific enough to falsify your claims if they are
found to be inaccurate. "Some DNA somewhere" doesn't meet that
criteria.
> > > > "Gee, maybe there are patterns in DNA." is not a scientific hypothesis,
> > > > regardless of how many baseless algorithms you make up.
> > >
> > > It is simply SETI done in DNA instead of the stars.
> >
> > No, it is a vague speculation that makes no testable predictions.
>
> It can be made as specific as SETI's.
So you keep claiming. Prove it or retract it.
BJ
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:1152035773.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> > > > > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant
> >> > > > > wavelength being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
> >>
> >> What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
> >
> >
> > There are no repeating sequential digits of primes more than 500 in
> > digit length in DNA found in earthly species.
> <snip>
>
>
> Did you mean Pi? Otherwise your statement doesn't make sense.
>
> As has been pointed out previously: There are an infinite number of possible
> encoding schemes.
What does this have to do with anything? There may be an infinite
number of algorithms for determining if a SETI signal is "narrow"
enough.
> Your assertion is much too vague for testing.
>
> Perhaps you mean a base-4 representation. Is that what you mean?
For now lets use a binary representation and map it to base 4. First
make a list of the first 500 prime numbers:
A: 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 29 .....
Then convert these to binary digits using the least needed length:
B: 1,11,101, 1101, etc... (dummy numbers for illustration only.)
Remove the commas and then you have a template string:
C: 1111011101...
D: Now, map the DNA bases to binary, like:
T = 00
A = 01
G = 10
C = 11
There are 16 possible mappings IIRC. Thus, we take our binary string
(C) and sift thru DNA encodings using all 16 possible mappings seeing
if there is a match. We may also want to log (save) partial matches.
(We may also want to look in the reverse direction in case aliens read
right-to-left.)
As far as why primes might be used:
http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/PDF/extraterrestrial.pdf
Here is the Google HTML cache version of it if you have trouble reading
PDF:
They appear to use a fixed-length "number" approach, which is certainly
another possibility. However, that may stand out in other ways because
it would repeat a lot of zeros.
>
> --
> Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
> http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
-T-
topmind
> >> No, it is a vague speculation that makes no testable predictions.
> >
> > It can be made as specific as SETI's.
>
> So you claim. Again. And yet you can't do it, you can't point to anyone
> who can.
>
> Deadrat
Ratty, my boy. Why, I am awaiting the Second Coming to reveal it. (And
I don't mean masturbation.)
-T-
topmind
> > > > > > > wavelength being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
> > >
> > > What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
> >
> > There are no repeating sequential digits of primes more than 500 in
> > digit length in DNA found in earthly species.
>
> Does it hurt when you hold those coconut shells so tightly to your
> ears?
>
> Once again, a scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations
> and must form the basis for testable predictions, the inaccuracy of
> which would serve to falsify the hypothesis. The SETI researchers have
> justified their investigation of the radio spectrum in general
"in general"? How have they justified it? Drakes equation is the
closest they have and it has more unknown factors than Iraq's WMD's.
> and the
> particular wavelengths selected in particular based on empirical
> observations of human technology and knowledge of physics.
Observations of human technology? You mean like the "it's a small
world" song inside DNA from the "DNA Message in a Bottle" link?
>
> What empirical observations does your non-hypothesis purport to
> explain? What justification do you have for searching DNA? Why would
> prime numbers be expected? How would they be encoded?
I answered that in a reply to Zach.
>
> > We can add other algorithms in there also
>
> You can add anything. That's an advantage vague speculations have over
> rigorous scientific hypotheses.
SETI is NOT based on anything "rigorous" and you know it. It is a
SCI-FI GUESS!!!
You are a soft-ass on SETI and a hard-ass on DNA-ID. You are biased and
stubborn. I shall call this the SAHA principle (soft-ass-hard-ass).
Otherwise known as a "double standard".
>
> > > What is the scientific hypothesis of intelligent design that predicts
> > > that prime numbers will be found in a genome?
> > >
> > > > > how they would be encoded,
> > > >
> > > > Those details will come with the algorithm.
> > >
> > > No, as has been repeatedly explained to you, the hypothesis must be
> > > specific enough to predict exactly what would be found and where it
> > > would be found if the hypothesis were correct. Failure of the
> > > prediction then falsifies the hypothesis.
> >
> > What do you mean by "where"? SETI doesn't specify where, except where
> > they are limited based on instrument/detection limitations.
>
> The SETI radiotelescope project is looking in a very specific region of
> the electromagnetic spectrum for reasons based on physics.
Wrong. They do it because they don't have the resources to search
*more* EM regions, and thus made a "best guess" based on the
*relatively* quiet natural sources in that region, and the possibility
that ET may use the "water line" to imply they are made of water.
> They
> clearly specify the type of signal they are looking for, and justify
> that choice.
The frequency choice is just about arbitrary. You are exaggerating, as
usual.
> What is the justification for looking in DNA? Will any
> DNA do or only that of particular species? What kind of signal is
> predicted? How would it be encoded? How exactly do the empirical
> observations you are attempting to explain lead to those answers?
>
> > > > > or which genome or genomes
> > > > > they would be found in.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? Why is this necessary? It sounds like another one of your
> > > > artificial fake phoney made-up hurdles.
> > >
> > > A scientific hypothesis must be specific enough to predict exactly what
> > > would be found and where it would be found if the hypothesis were
> > > correct. Failure of the prediction then falsifies the hypothesis.
> >
> > Again, please clarify this "where" stuff, and show where it comes from
> > in definitions of hypothesis.
>
> To be considered science, your non-hypothesis must result in
> predictions that are specific enough to falsify your claims if they are
> found to be inaccurate. "Some DNA somewhere" doesn't meet that
> criteria.
As in "some radio broadcasts from unknown aliens on unknown planets"?
Again, the SAHA principle. SETI is a freekin' long-shot guess.
-T-
topmind
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2006-07-02, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2006-07-02, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> >> Ok. Don't be shy. I read math. Put your speculation into numbers. Be
> >> >> specific!
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Show me SETI's, and I shall clone their technique.
> >>
> >> Got a big pile of bamboo ready?
> >
> > What is this in reference to? The Cargo Cult issue? Have you seen my
> > Sat, Jul 1 2006 9:24 pm reply on the subject?
>
> Yes. It was exactly what I expected. Keep talking into the coconut.
But I don't want to put my mouth anywhere near your lice-infested,
arrogant head.
>
> Mark
Zachriel
> Zachriel wrote:
>> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
>> news:1152035773.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > > > > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant
>> >> > > > > wavelength being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
>> >>
>> >> What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
>> >
>> >
>> > There are no repeating sequential digits of primes more than 500 in
>> > digit length in DNA found in earthly species.
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Did you mean Pi? Otherwise your statement doesn't make sense.
>>
>> As has been pointed out previously: There are an infinite number of
>> possible
>> encoding schemes.
>
> What does this have to do with anything? There may be an infinite
> number of algorithms for determining if a SETI signal is "narrow"
> enough.
It has to do with SETI providing a specific foundation for their hypothesis,
and a specific hypothesis that can be tested.
>
>> Your assertion is much too vague for testing.
>>
>> Perhaps you mean a base-4 representation. Is that what you mean?
>
> For now lets use a binary representation and map it to base 4. First
> make a list of the first 500 prime numbers:
>
> A: 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 29 .....
Um, the first prime number is 2.
Then 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29
http://primes.utm.edu/lists/small/1000.txt
>
> Then convert these to binary digits using the least needed length:
>
> B: 1,11,101, 1101, etc... (dummy numbers for illustration only.)
>
> Remove the commas and then you have a template string:
>
> C: 1111011101...
>
> D: Now, map the DNA bases to binary, like:
>
> T = 00
> A = 01
> G = 10
> C = 11
>
> There are 16 possible mappings IIRC.
4! = 24
Times two forward and backwards for forty-eight. However, all that won't be
necessary. Here's the first one hundred quaternary digits of the prime
sequence (in binary):
10 11 10 11 11 10 11 11 01 10
00 11 00 11 10 11 11 11 01 11
11 11 00 10 11 01 00 11 01 01
11 01 11 11 10 10 11 11 01 11
11 10 11 00 00 11 10 00 11 11
00 10 01 10 01 11 11 01 00 11
10 11 00 11 10 00 01 11 00 10
11 10 01 11 11 01 01 11 10 11
01 11 10 00 11 11 11 11 10 00
00 11 10 00 10 01 10 00 10 11
Let me rewrite the first row which is 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13.
10 11 101 111 1011 1101 - 10...
And so on. This is what we are looking for in the genome. Heavens! What are
we to do? Let me think. Something about the study of large collections of
data? It's on the tip of my tongue. Well, anyway, while we ponder that,
let's just group the quaternary digits and count them, shall we?
--
The first 100 quaternary digits reveal this:
00 - 17
01 - 16
10 - 23
11 - 44
The first 200 quaternary digits:
00 - 35
01 - 39
10 - 45
11 - 81
The first 1000 prime numbers make for 2933 quaternary digits:
00 - 503
01 - 700
10 - 715
11 - 1015
Even the first 10 quaternary digits are aberrant. You can count them
yourself in the first row above.
00 - 0
01 - 1
10 - 4
11 - 5
Using your schema the primes result in a very strong statistical signal in a
genome such as E. coli (which from previous investigations we know has a
more-or-less even distribution of nucleotide-bases).
Science has discovered a myriad of patterns in the genome. However,
"everything, thus far, says 'evolution' in big flaming letters with no room
for any kind of special design. We find no funky 'uber design' to the
genome, just a mish-mash of elements that are clearly jumbled together out
of necessity." - Lilith, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/l27ze
The only real question is whether you will abandon your unsupported claims.
--
Zachriel
But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues.
You can tell by the way she smiles. - Dylan
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
> Thus, we take our binary string
> (C) and sift thru DNA encodings using all 16 possible mappings seeing
> if there is a match. We may also want to log (save) partial matches.
>
> (We may also want to look in the reverse direction in case aliens read
> right-to-left.)
>
> As far as why primes might be used:
>
> http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/PDF/extraterrestrial.pdf
>
> Here is the Google HTML cache version of it if you have trouble reading
> PDF:
>
> http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ztBPl2kv3KAJ:www.math.dartmouth.edu/~carlp/PDF/extraterrestrial.pdf+SETI+prime+numbers&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
>
> They appear to use a fixed-length "number" approach, which is certainly
> another possibility. However, that may stand out in other ways because
> it would repeat a lot of zeros.
Yes, and we know how much the aliens like to try and hide their messages.
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2006-07-02, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>> > It is almost like saying that anyone who uses a microscope throughout
>> > their career is an expert in microscopes merely by familiarity and
>> > association.
>>
>> Gould's qualifications (stellar as they are) are irrelevent. The only
>> person bringing them up is you. People accept Gould's definition because
>> it is consistent to the usage of scientists everywhere.
>
> Where is your survey that they just rolled over and accepted them at
> face value? You are making crap up out of thin air again.
If I am, then it should be possible for you to provide a counterexample:
in particular, scientists who use the term "fact" in a way which is
inconsistent with Gould's usage.
> If "hypothesis" is truly about measuring human motives,
Gould was talking about the definition of "fact", not "hypothesis". I know
that you actually don't understand that different words actually mean
different things. And of course hypothesis aren't about measuring human
motives, and nobody even remotely implied they were.
> then all my education was wrong,
Well, it appears it didn't actually result in you understanding the subject
matter at least.
> and I am indeed [bleeped] in the head and should
> be burried next to Terri Shivo here and now.
>
> All my education and reading told me that science needed to distance
> itself from human motives and feelings as much as possible to avoid
> bias, AKA, outcome favoritism.
Yes, it's a pity that you don't actually understand basic words and their
usage in context, but instead continue to make up these irrelevant threads
that do nothing but reveal the depth of your own confusion.
> I think Gould knows this, but was just writing in a colloquial way.
Gould didn't say, or imply, or mean anything that you seem to be attributing
to him. Your own inability to understand his plainly written statement says
more about your own inadequacies than his.
>> > I doubt he ever gave "in order to" much thought. It was an informal
>> > statement on his part, not meant for heavy scrutiny. Yet, you turn it
>> > into the Bible.
>>
>> Hypotheses aren't atoms: they don't exist except as theoretical concepts
>> in the minds of humans. They are formulated to test certain ideas. Nobody
>> else seems to find that as deeply sinister as you do.
>
> That may be what we use them for, but that does not mean the purpose
> itself is or should be part of the definition.
That is what they are. They only exist for a reason: that reason is to
enable us to test the consequences of our assumption.
> Mixing human emotions
> into formal science definitions for no reason is just plain stupid,
> period. A robot with no sense of purpose can do science also.
Apparently the robot vastly exceeds your capability then.
> Anyhow, what about my suggested re-work?:
>
> "A tentative assumption made which has logical or
> empirical consequences which can be tested."
>
> Do you have any specific problems with it?
In what way do you think this actually differs from Gould's statement?
>> Mark
>>
>
> -T-
>
Mark VandeWettering
> For now lets use a binary representation and map it to base 4. First
> make a list of the first 500 prime numbers:
>
> A: 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 29 .....
I can now understand why you haven't attempted any math in support of your
assertions.
Mark
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Mark VandeWettering
<wett...@attbi.com>:
Hey, he did better than chance! He included 1 and left out
2, 5, 19 and 23, but he still got more than half correct
(through 29, that is).
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
bryce.topm...@googlemail.com
> > > > > > > > "There are no narrow-band radio signals of ~21cm resonant
> > > > > > > > wavelength being emitted from planets orbiting nearby stars".
> > > >
> > > > What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
> > >
> > > There are no repeating sequential digits of primes more than 500 in
> > > digit length in DNA found in earthly species.
> >
> > Does it hurt when you hold those coconut shells so tightly to your
> > ears?
> >
> > Once again, a scientific hypothesis must explain empirical observations
> > and must form the basis for testable predictions, the inaccuracy of
> > which would serve to falsify the hypothesis. The SETI researchers have
> > justified their investigation of the radio spectrum in general
>
> "in general"? How have they justified it? Drakes equation is the
> closest they have and it has more unknown factors than Iraq's WMD's.
The hypothesis being investigated by the SETI radiotelescope project is
not based on Drake's equation. The selection of the radio spectrum is
based on the behavior of the only known intelligent species that uses
technology, namely ourselves.
> > and the
> > particular wavelengths selected in particular based on empirical
> > observations of human technology and knowledge of physics.
>
> Observations of human technology? You mean like the "it's a small
> world" song inside DNA from the "DNA Message in a Bottle" link?
No, like the fact that we know of no natural sources of certain types
of signals and that the "watering hole" is a measuring unit independent
location in the spectrum.
On what empirical observations are you basing your non-hypothesis? No
known intelligent species has encoded messages in the genome analogues
on other planets. You admit elsewhere in the thread that we do _not_
have the technical capability to spread our seed across the galaxy. No
known intelligent species has encoded messages in DNA in such a way
that those messages would be preserved over billions of generations of
evolution. You have not identified any specific pattern, encoding,
genome, or location within a genome that derives from empirical
observations or is predicted by your non-hypothesis.
In short, after hundreds of messages and numerous, repeated attempts by
multiple individuals to disabuse you of your misconceptions, you still
have not produced a scientific hypothesis of intelligent design.
> > What empirical observations does your non-hypothesis purport to
> > explain? What justification do you have for searching DNA? Why would
> > prime numbers be expected? How would they be encoded?
>
> I answered that in a reply to Zach.
No, all you did there was demonstrate that you don't know even the
first few prime numbers. Amusing, but not an answer.
> > > We can add other algorithms in there also
> >
> > You can add anything. That's an advantage vague speculations have over
> > rigorous scientific hypotheses.
>
> SETI is NOT based on anything "rigorous" and you know it. It is a
> SCI-FI GUESS!!!
Argument by capitalization. I see you're branching out and trying new
fallacies. Good for you.
Now that you've got that out of your system, how about answering the
original questions:
What is the scientific hypothesis of intelligent design that predicts
that patterns will be found in a genome?
What empirical observations are you attempting to explain?
What is the justification for looking in DNA?
Will any DNA do or only that of particular species?
What kind of signal is predicted?
How would it be encoded?
How exactly do the empirical observations you are attempting to explain
lead to those answers?
Your rants, attempted misdirections, and general trollish behavior has
been fun for a while, but it's getting boring. The time has come for
you to put up or shut up.
BJ
Zachriel
"Zachriel" <angelm...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:12am39n...@corp.supernews.com...
First twenty primes in binary:
10
11
101
111
1011
1101
10001
10011
10111
11101
11111
100101
101001
101011
101111
110101
111011
111101
1000011
1000111
Note that every single binary number begins with the numeral 1 — per your
instructions. The selection of a different numeric base still results in a
statistically non-random distribution. Let's consider just the last digit:
--
In binary, base-2
01111111111111111111...
Never a 0, after the first.
In quaternary, base-4
23133113313113313133...
Never a 0 or a 2, after the first.
In hexary, base-6
23515151551151555115...
After the first two, all 1's and 5's forever!
In decimal, base 10
23571379391713739171...
Notice the curious lack of 0's, 2's, 4's, 5's, 6's and 8's. Most digits are
excluded from the last digit position forever and ever!
In any case, there is no such list of quaternary primes in the genome
examined.
--
Zachriel
But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues.
You can tell by the way she smiles. — Dylan
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/
Zachriel
CORRECTION: Those are the correct results for the first 2933 quaternary
digits, but the first 1000 primes make 5866 quaternary digits or 11732 bits.
00 - 1077
01 - 1366
10 - 1411
11 - 2012
topmind
I was going to save it til later when I could write it up nice and
clean, but you kept pressuring on that point, so I slopped it out. I
figured criticism for slop was better than criticism for ommission. As
they say in the software business, "if you really want it badly, that
is what you get". There is a disclaimer that the lists are only
illustrations and not real values somewhere around that, which was
conviniently snipped by you. Trying to make another mountain out of a
mole hill? Mole hills are all you have, I guess.
>
> Mark
-T-
Michael Siemon
"topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
My dear twit,
If you are so "sloppy" that you can make a list of the first (few!)
primes including 1 and excluding 2 and 5, you set yourself up for
mockery. And for essentially zero consideration of anything you are
floundering around trying to say in such "slop". Advice: don't _use_
"primes" if you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. That
same advice seems to generalize to a _lot_ of stuff you want to talk
about, with apparently equal ignorance.
topmind
> "topmind" <top...@technologist.com> wrote in message
> And so on. This is what we are looking for in the genome. Heavens! What are
> we to do? Let me think. Something about the study of large collections of
> data? It's on the tip of my tongue. Well, anyway, while we ponder that,
> let's just group the quaternary digits and count them, shall we?
Yes, certain codons will occure more often than others. Please tell me
this does not take us back to the "they would have noticed" argument
again. You have not shown any evidence that they actually looked for
such on a large scale.
By the way, I don't think an obvious pattern like
AAAATTTTAAAATTTTAAAATTTT would last long because critters tend to keep
"junk DNA" because according to some studies it offers potentially
useful snippets to turn on and off (use) as needed, sort of like a
programming library: you keep the library around even if you don't use
all of it in a given project (eon). Simple repeating sequences like the
above would not serve that purpose very well and are thus likely to be
removed over time due to natural selection. Something that is more
random thus may last longer because it is more likely to coincidentally
contain something useful than repeats do.
(I'll see if I can dig up the article on junk DNA being "spare" if
interested.)
-T-
topmind
I was illustrating the encoding process because that is what they
wanted. I was not illustrating anything detailed about the nature of
primes themselves. Thus, accurate primes were technically *superfluous*
to the purpose of *my* illustration.
If that is bad salesmanship, fuck it. I don't care. You want pretty, go
sniff some daiseys.
Complain about something REAL or shut the hell up. If I want to hear
useless nagging, I go talk to my wife. She is prettier than you so she
gets priority.
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
This is just the kind of excuse I expected that you would make.
Mark
topmind
> >
> > "A tentative assumption made which has logical or
> > empirical consequences which can be tested."
> >
> > Do you have any specific problems with it?
>
> In what way do you think this actually differs from Gould's statement?
It says nothing about human motivations or intentions. It *can* be
tested rather than saying somebody must *intend* to test it.
It talks about the attributes of the idea, *not* about attributes of
the presenter(s) of the idea. Make sense?
You see, it is a key issue because Zach claimed that since I had no
immediate plans ("intent") to actually test DNA *myself*, that it did
not qualify as a scientific hypothesis.
I would agree it is an INsignificant point, but Zach thinks science is
about about testing human intentions. He should stick with his Excel
VBA scripts.
>
> >> Mark
-T-
topmind
You win irrelavent anal-retentive side battles, but I win the real war.
That is all that matters.
-T-
Mark VandeWettering
Is that what you were doing? That was perhaps your intention (although,
frankly I think that is giving you more credit than you are due) but the
reality is that all you did was illustrate just how lacking in any kind
of mathematical understanding you are.
> I was not illustrating anything detailed about the nature of
> primes themselves. Thus, accurate primes were technically *superfluous*
> to the purpose of *my* illustration.
And yet, superfluous as they were, and as trivial as they were, you
made no less than five mistakes:
1. 1 is not prime.
2. 2 is a prime.
3. 5 is a prime.
4. 19 is also a prime.
5. 23 is also a prime.
One or two, you might reasonably chalk up to carelessness, but five?
If you can't get something so basic correct, why should we trust your
mathematical reasoning about planetary orbits or probabilities?
The simple answer: we shouldn't.
> If that is bad salesmanship, fuck it. I don't care. You want pretty, go
> sniff some daiseys.
It's not bad salesmanship: it's simply bad mathematics.
> Complain about something REAL or shut the hell up. If I want to hear
> useless nagging, I go talk to my wife. She is prettier than you so she
> gets priority.
Wow, stupid AND an ass. You are quite the double threat.
Mark
> -T-
>
Mark VandeWettering
Look, if you want to just admit that you can't do basic math, and that
all your reasoning having to do with math is just stuff you are pulling
from your nether regions, then fine, I'll stop pointing out your all too
numerous shortcomings. But if you are going to make arguments about
searching for primes in the genome, but you can make five mistakes in a
listing of the first seven primes, then it is hardly irrelevant to point
out that perhaps you aren't the sharpest pencil in the box when it comes
to mathematical skill.
It doesn't, after all, take much skill to operate a computer made from
bamboo and coconuts.
Mark
> -T-
topmind
Why can't you spend such time, anal-ness, and effort on something
useful, like providing a clean, unambiguous definition of "hypothesis"?
Why? Because you are not mentally swift enough to tackle such issues,
so instead chase the low-hanging but dried useless fruit, like an
impulsive monkey who cannot plan for the big juicey stuff near the top
of the tree.
Hmmm. Prime Ate.
>
> Wow, stupid AND an ass. You are quite the double threat.
>
The feeling's mutual.
>
> Mark
>
-T-