Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Wrong.

Occhams razor may be practiced, it is a heuristic, being external to logic, such trail and errors attempt to construct thoretical definitions.

Many discoveries in science have occured by utilising occhams razor, human cognitive faculties of imaging opens the conceptual spectrum.



Wrong.

Mathematics is infallible logic, your arguement is self refuting.

Also, are you suggesting there is no scientific consensus?

How is the 'valuation' of a theory measured?

While science does not appeal to normatives, scientists may conform, it varies.

Do you not disagree with the Linnean system of binnary nomenclature?

I am certain that many scientists in their specific fields will disagree.

The rest of your arguements are of ad hominen refutations, fallicious.

Your arguement is a diversion, you are red herring, being that you have been out performed.

As for dyslexia, that is correct, I construct the words as I interpret them, however this is a consequence of my abnormaly high 'intelligent quotient', furthermore I do not appeal to the consensus, averse to you.

You may remain neurologically typical, you will simply be out performed in every criteria as all typicalists are subjected to.

You wrote,

What the **** are you doing here? To belittle people? You're a jerk.

You have outperformed no one here, unless it is in the category of unwitting comic relief. "Intelligence quotient" is meaningless, but if you want to play that game, mine is high, as well. Given that i have not commented on the specific points in dispute between you and FM, you have absolutely no basis upon which to compare "performance" between us.

Oh, yeah, one other category in which you excell--unjustified conceit.

When did I "belittle people"?

How is this defined?

I have been subjected to ad hominen refutation, in all my arguement.

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, an exercise which does not address the subject. Therefore, it cannot function as refutation. You ain't do damned slick as you think you are.

See if you can't work normative into your response. That one cracks me up.

Yes it does function as a refutation, however it is not logical, though this does not necessarily negate the truth reliability.

Quite a few words there to say nothing. You really do gabble, and you have so far failed entirely to undermine the scientific basis for a theory of evolution. One wonders just what it is that you think you are doing here.

Again, reducing the arguement to the individual.

My arguement is a philosophical arguement of formal logic, I cannot refute a scientific fact with science.

You "try" to belittle people with your superior intellect; you're all too dumb to understand philosophy, logic and science like I understand those subjects.

All you've done is presented yourself as a jerk on a2k.

No, your argument is not "a philosophical argument of formal logic." It is a confused deployment of philosophical jargon which has nothing to say about the scientific basis for a theory of evolution. I don't doubt that you cannot refute a scientific "fact" (there is actually no such animal) with science--but it is a foundational principle of scientific theories that they are subject to falsifiability. So long as they are not falsified, they can be treated as fact. At any such point as a theory is falsified, it must either be discarded, or restated so that it accounts for all data.

It was already evident that you consider yourself a master of philosophical jargon, and that you think it means something in this cotnext. It doesn't function as an argument of formal logic, either.

What else is there to argue?

What is the discussion, anti religion?

I have provided nutritional and excersise assistence on this forum, I was practicing as a track and field athlete middle/long distance races, 4 months ago in the UK, unfortunately I quit.

However, I am also educated in all the sciences, mathematics and semantics.

There is modality, that is all I have attempted to do, construct a modal between formal and informal systems.

I did not "belittle" science, my interpretation is objective, none of my posts have 'derogatory/pejorative' practices, my language aquisition is of logical applications.

It appears that I am this "jerk" interpretation, therefore this is my final post.

Simply, formal logic is not compatible with empirical assumptions, meaning that circular reasoning is illogical, or to elaborate (make more sense), 'ultimately' illogical.

This is acknowledged as the 'problem with induction'.

There is a reason science is no longer 'natural philosophy', more so when Godel formulated the incompleteness theorems.

That is all, I do hope this clarifies, and no 'hard feelings' if you will ^^

You wrote,

If that's not belittling to you, you have no concept of it.

Anomie has outperformed all of us in nebulousness.

That boy needs to read some Popper . . .

"Lack of clarity is a sin and pretentiousness is a crime."
--Karl Popper

Popper was definitely a scientist and not a politician

****, I just got up and you guys scared im away. Anomie come back.

Youre confusing what science does with some attempt at arcane symbolic logic. The use of terms like "normative" aare only valid in non physical and biological and chemical sciences. A "Norm" may be sestablished in very limited arenas,(such as the normalizing of clades . The only reason that it is useful in a very limited sense is becaue the environments of many species demes are highly variable through geologic time. Establishing a "primary environmental condition" yields a comparative base fro gene pool exoansion or retardation. Otherwise the concept of norms. We apply norms only to comparison of systems in geology. We apply the term as a fundamental "center point" of a graph, not that such things even ever exist. In sciences within which DISCOVERY is the game, there are no norms. Todo otherwise is kinda delusional. The hard sciences dont play like social sciences (where I think your sandbox resides). I dont have any problem in the argument you are trying to make, its just incorrect.

What sciences do you have training, maybe we can have a real dialogue (Ill dispense with any topical jargon from my g=fields and all I ask of you is to quit trying to sound like communication means less than trying to impress. As you can see, youre not impressing anybody .

As I recall, you started your entire career in A2k as a shot at evolution because of some (I forget) comment that such randomness is mathematically impossible. ITs not because its not a random function or some kind of infinite expansion.

Your other contribution re"Occams razor, is just flat bullshit. In science, there is no basis for any optimization of a discovery in most areas. Optimization, which embodies Occam's rule, heavily requires other formularies to compare to. Choosing the simplest "peptide linkage" that works may require several hundred intermediates of applications beyond what an initial equation may say.
Examples of this are the work of PAul Ehrlich or Thomas EDison where the discoverers worked on hundreds of candidates before they discovered a decent filament or a treatment for a disease. Application of Occams razor would perhaps had them just quit and Pul Ehrilch may have stopped at formulation 605. Occams razor makes one decide among several candidates of a prpocess and choosing the simplest. That is about a sure way for disaster in science. The discovery of vector interaction in transmissable diseases is an example where the process of the search is free of equal candidates.


Im often amazed at how non-scientists always tell the workers in their scientific fields what or what isnt valid.

I never really considered Popper a "scientist". Some of his work ws an attempt to trash classical observational and discovery based "science" in favor of the falsification process. He started quite a broohaa in that view. Im not sure that the classical (Now it camn be called classical) process of falsification is valid in all cases, especially in areas of discovery and formulation.

Having said that, I suppose I could admit that his methodology was quite responsible for the findings of one recent and very important fossil intermediary of "tetrapods". The discovery of Tiiktalik rosacea was based upon a "sort of " application of falsification process in that SHubin and Daeschler chose a site that,

IF THE WORLD GEOLOGIC MAPS OF THE DEVONIAN WERE CORRECT

IF CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY WERE CORRECT and

IF AN INTERMDIATE BETWEEN FISH AND AMPHIBIAN WOULD HAVE A PRONOUNCED STRUCTURAL ADVANCE THAT WOULD INCLUDE ARTICULATION .

They actually gambled based upon a bit of "Popperistic" projection. They pulled it off. So , even a blind horse can stumble onto a hay bale