Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft/Archive1

message: I'm not sure how to do this, so I thought I would just add a section to discuss what was written.  Here are a few of my points:
*First of all, this is great.  Very well written.
*I think that there should be some discussion of the fact that falsifiability (is this a real word?) is not, in fact, a method that is employed by scientists on a regular basis.  
*Once again, I hate making these points more complicated, because the Fundies (love that word, even though it really is not an actual word) will seize on the nuance and start a whole new argument.  But, the scientific process is to test theories.  But at some point, a theory has been so tested that the probability of falseness must approach zero.
*Each of your points that you make as test that could falsify Evolution are in of themselves almost impossible to falsify.  The probability of the earth's age being anything less than 4-6 billion years approaches 0.  In other words, you need to falsify one of the tests to falsify Evolution, and that probability again is so small as to define impossible.  My point here is that some creationist can say (and trust me they will), "see here, this smart scientist dude says that Evolution is false if the earth is less than a few billion years old.  Well we know the Earth is only 7000 years old, so there you go, them Evolutionists prove themselves wrong.  We win."  
*Is there an example of one Theory somewhere that fell apart due to falsifying?  I'm not talking about the Earth being flat, I'm talking something more recent.  I'm not much into particle physics, and my brain is made of that material anyways, but maybe some weird physics theory was demolished by experimentation.  If there is one, you could describe how it was tested and revised.  If there isn't one, it probably doesn't matter.
**Newton's laws of motion didn't 'fall apart' but where shown to be incomplete and inaccurate (by the factor of v^2/c^2, arguably undetectable under normal (earth-bound) circumstances) when Einstein's theory of special relativity was proven experimentally. (see page 5 of Statics and Dynamics for details). -AndrewDressel 15:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would include phlogisten theory and caloric theory and the geocentric theory and alchemy and astrology and many many other obsolete theories that are discarded now.--Filll 16:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok if this is confusing to you, it is worth putting a section in to discuss it. Hypothesis testing is just a statistical technique used when  analyzing data. Falsifiability is a philosophical point. It is just the existence of a willingness to change the theory if it is proved wrong, not the method of proving it wrong. So first you do hypothesis testing. And then if based on the results of the hypothesis test, you can change your theory, then it is falsifiable. If you cannot change your hypothesis or theory because of religious convictions or some other reason, it is not falsifiable. Basically if a theory or hypothesis is not falsifiable, the results of a hypothesis test are irrelevant. One really is not even allowed to make a hypothesis test if the hypothesis or theory is not falsifiable, by definition.--Filll 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This really is the "Philosophy of Science."  Very complex, abstract and highly nuanced ideas.  I think we need to say the basic point--if you don't believe a hypothesis is falsifiable, it is not really a scientific hypothesis.  For example, Creationists, by definition, cannot accept the idea that a supernatural being created the earth and everything on it, therefore they have a hypothesis that, by definition, is not falsefiabile.OrangeMarlin 21:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Orangemarlin, I think you meant that Creationists cannot accept the idea that a supernatural being did not create the Earth, etc.  Dionyseus 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I did mean.  Of course, we would have a lot less contentious discussions in these various articles if what I wrote WAS accurate!  OrangeMarlin 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Strangely enough though many Creationists are happy to accept the idea that a different supernatural being from another religion did not create the Earth ;only theirs did. A form of what I call "asymetrical atheism" (obviously because I invented the term this morning you'll get no google hits but you get the idea that they don't believe in all the others gods except their own).  Nice article so far - just needs a snappy page name. Ttiotsw 23:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Snappy Page name like "Creation Science is Not Science." OrangeMarlin 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Eve I think that is beautifully stated. At least in my understanding of the concept of falsifiability, you are completely correct. Suppose that one has a deity that appears to solve any possible problems with a given theory or hypothesis, and one is convinced of this and refuses to be dissuaded. Any theory or hypothesis that included this deity as a component would not be falsifiable, since it would be impossible to get a theory or hypothesis without the deity. There is no hypothesis test that includes the null hypothesis of "no deity" possible. Or it does not have to be a deity; it could be magic, or a ghost, or a witch's spell, or an all-powerful extraterrestrial that is intervening invisibly, or the "FORCE" of the Jedi Knights. If something like this is an undeniable component of your hypothesis or your theory that cannot be removed, then the hypothesis or theory is at least partially unfalsifiable. I say partially because there might be pieces that are amenable to change and are falsifiable, but the parts that are absolutely unchangable are unfalsifiable. Suppose I was convinced the sun orbited the earth. Suppose I would accept no other explanation for what I observed. I would be forced to accept all kinds of retrograde motions of planets ("wandering stars") and other convoluted explanations to protect my geocentric theory. I could maintain the theory of course, but the fact that it was not allowed to change, possibly because of bias or scriptural reasons or tradition means that my science based on this geocentric theory is not falsifiable. I have not read Popper myself. I have not read the legal tomes that address this. This is just an amateur's interpretation. I will confess that when I first encountered falsifiability (again when talking to a creationist) I was somewhat confused. I was never taught falsifiability in any class. It did not appear in any textbook of mine. It sounded like a fake word and I doubted that it was in any dictionary. And here I had someone in my face belligerent, and calling me stupid, red faced, screaming, cursing, and threatening and bullying me and using the word "falsifiability". It was a bit disconcerting. Of course, like our vacuous friend, the creationist had memorized all the standard stock creationist arguments in their copious pamphlets and books. If you see them they are sort of simplistic. For example, I have had them give me the following sort of explanation for fossils: "There was a Great Flood. Lots of stuff died and was buried in the mud. The dead animals turned into fossils. Done. And anyone who questions this is stupid and an asshole and working for Satan. And you are not allowed to question me because every word out of my mouth personally is the Word of God. So f-off you s-head. I am holy and speaking for God and you are stupid." Sort of juvenile and really hostile to the idea of free thought. If you dispute them, they turn your words against you and accuse you of being close-minded. "Close-minded" and "unscientific" to a creationist is not being like a sheep and obeying blindly, and not agreeing with what the creationists say. It is almost perfectly predictable, like speaking to a robot.--Filll 14:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion points 

message: I don't think this is a worthwhile addition to the article. Is this a major issue? Maybe. However, a lot of this seems more related to either the scientific method or the United States' courts' defintion of science than it does evolution, and I'm pretty sure this is elsewhere in Wikipedia. It might belong in, say, creation vs evolution controversy or something, but not in the main Evolution article. Titanium Dragon 09:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not propose adding it to the article. I think the evolution article is too long as it is. We might have one sentence in the evolution article about this someplace, with a link. Period. I am more thinking of a suite of articles that address the controversy more carefully than that one sad "evolution creationism controversy article" which is sort of a mess. These issues can  not be adequately developed in one article. And frankly, as we discussed, "falsifiability" is not really part of the standard science of evolution and the evolution article should be about evolution, not about creationism or defending ones self from creationism or about philosophy of science. I think there is too much already about defending ones self from creationism. I would advocate a much more abbreviated section with links in the evolution article about the controversy. So I do not think it should go in the evolution article. The evolution article should be for real science, not this kind of stuff.--Filll 14:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Titanium Dragon, I somewhat disagree with you mostly because the arguments against Evolution include that Creationism is a science rather than a myth.  But Filll is right, the Evolution article has evolved (couldn't help myself) into a rather unwieldy article.  But it should reference the fact that Evolution is falsifiable, and supernatural myths like Genesis are not.  But you're right that maybe the reference on the Evolution page to the Creation vs Evolution article.  OrangeMarlin 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because you can type some phrase into google does not mean it is a prominent part of science. No professional physics text or reference includes it. No graduate classes in physics include it. You can get a bachelors masters and phd in physics and teach and do research in physics for 50 years and never encounter "falsifiability." Philosophy is basically horse**** and philosophers of science have essentially zero influence on science itself. Once in a while a phrase like "paradigm shift" will leak out of philosophy into the general culture, and influence people's speech, but otherwise, they are irrelevant.--Filll 15:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Philosophy is basically horse**** and philosophers of science have essentially zero influence on science itself.:  Okay fill.  65.73.44.65 15:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think this is a good addition 

message: This article:
*http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm
is provocative and apparently a creationist article, but it has a lot of references. I would like to hear other opinions about it. What I find irritating is that it seems to be written by someone who has very limited knowledge of evolution or science, so it misrepresents the situation. I would not be surprised if the references do not support completely the position the author is trying to take. I notice the author completely ignores the well-known principles of co-evolution. I also notice that the author either is ignorant of or ignores laboratory and field observations of evolution occuring. The author also tries to imply that any observational science such as seismology, astrophysics, geomagnetism, oceanography, meteorology etc is not falsifiable since observations are not repeatable, etc. All that the author has stumbled on is that some sciences are observational and some are experimental and some are both. Evolution happens to be both. And now with DNA evidence, it is far more well-established than many sciences. Just because something happened a long time in the past does not mean that the evidence of the event is not scientific evidence. He also gets all wound up about the phrase "survival of the fittest" which he claims is part of evolution and completely mischaracterizes. This sort of nonsense is deadly to science, because it looks well written and well researched and well cited. It makes it look like there is a huge controversy and that lots of scientists and scholars disagree in substantial measure with evolution. It selectively presents the facts and misrepresents the facts it does present. Very dishonest and dangerous. Too bad scientists do not have burning at the stake, like rival religious faiths do. This author might be a candidate for immolation based on blasphemy, dishonesty and general stupidity.--Filll 13:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eves list

message: I wonder if he is not associated with Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps?--Filll 16:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I assume you're trying more guilt by association.  Without even know who the two people are (I have not looked at them) let me guess, they are creationists or belong to some other despised group. 65.73.44.65 17:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, just checked.  Please just stick to the conversation at hand, and quit trying to impugn me with association.  I never heard of either of those guys, but even if I did, it doesn't invalidate ideas I share.  65.73.44.65 17:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I wasn't actually referring to your post, but the preceding "dialog."  Anyway, I'll revise my request: I think it would be a good idea, and beneficial for the tone of this page, if Filll and Poet voluntarily deleted their hasty and heated remarks.  (Try grappa-soaked chesnuts sometime.)--EveRickert 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that sounds interesting.  Is it a store-bought item, or, do I just take a load of shelled, roasted chestnuts (over an open fire, of course) and soak them in grappa? OrangeMarlin 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Umn, it seems easier to understand how I would type pooper instead of popper, as opposed to you typing mute instead of moot.  The difference is typos and mis-spellings, as opposed to just selecting the wrong word (but I am sure I due that two from time too time).  This section on pooper could go, but I won't delete it (I've learned that lesson).  65.73.44.65 06:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  since the vacuous one is so interested in the Pooper 

message: Have I missed something, or did we just give up?  I think this section is well written, and should be added to the Evolution article (or maybe it's own article).  OrangeMarlin 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we're planning to ruminate on it, and then prepare the final version when we're ready to have it proofread?--Mr Fink 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, I didn't realize anyone was waiting for me!  Sorry.  I have a project due on January 2, plus family commitments, house-hunting, and a party to host on the 1st.  So I will be pretty useless for awhile.  I think the article is good, with the exception of needing references.  I could probably improve some of the wording, but that's not reason to hold off on posting it.  We would post it with a cite needed tag, or wait to post until we get more citations.  Either one is fine with me.--EveRickert 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in no rush to post it. I have this and several other articles addressing aspects of the creationist complaints that I am working on, in rough draft form. I think a more concerted effort to produce an accessible, well referenced set of anti-creationist, pro-science articles is called for, and this can be one of them.--Filll 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys don't get it, do you.  Wikipedia articles are not allowed to be "anti-, pro-" anything.  That's not what wikipedia is for. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why shouldn't it be?" Because the Wikimedia foundation has a clear written policy that is more inviolable than all others, that articles are not to be pro- or anti- anything, but are to be what we like to call "Neu-tral". An article on physics, chemistry or astronomy can certainly be neutral.  This is the closest to an open admission to a POV-pushing agenda as anything I have ever seen on Wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what are we doing? 

message: :(It's important to note here that Darwin proposed evolutionary theory long before DNA was identified. That’s called the “predictive” power of a scientific theory.)-- From http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2005/08/26/falsifiable-evolution-not-just-precambrian-rabbits/
As though people before Darwin did not recognize that little Johnny had his mother's eyes and father's lips.  This constitutes predictive power of Darwin's theory? 
:When Darwin wrote Origin of Species in 1859, there were no pre-human fossil remains. If none had ever been found, that would have falsified evolution (or human evolution, at least).  --From same source
Wow.  If none had never been found.  Give me a break.  This would not falsify, it would only look bad.  
:combinations from different lineages -- From same source
Like fertile whale/dolphin hybrids?
:In fact, all the geological evidence indicates a 4 billion year age of the earth. -- From same source
Which is not inconsistent with a literal reading of Genesis.
: Evidence of whales and humans and kangaroos and horseshoe crabs coming into existence at the same time. -- From same source
I hardly think that this would disprove evolution.  This would falsify a dating technique, perhaps.  
I am surprised he didn't throw in an experiment that required a time machine, e.g., traveling back in time and filming creation.  
Now I know where you are getting your ideas from.  05:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of contribution should be deleted on sight. I have had enough of disjointed incoherent ramblings.--Filll 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science blogs as sources