Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

What makes anyone think he will read any of it?

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

What makes anyone think he will read any of it?

Exactly!

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

well, usually, informed dissent is loded up with information and evidence. If he chooses not to read anything factual, that would explain his Bozoness.

He is stuck on the definition of theory as nothing but an assumption or guess.

The one I like is
"A theory, in science is an explanation of a phenomenon in which all the evidence supports, and no evidence refutes"

2 Replies

The man's not here to discuss science or anything else. He just wants to eff up a few threads.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

He is stuck on the definition of theory as nothing but an assumption or guess.

The one I like is
"A theory, in science is an explanation of a phenomenon in which all the evidence supports, and no evidence refutes"

Theorizing is an activity. It is the application of critical thinking to analyze phenomena, answer questions, solve problems, etc. Science is the practice of disciplined theorizing by making use of empirical observation, testing, experiments, etc. and applying the knowledge to refine the process of theorizing in the truest direction possible.

Scientific theorizing involves the ability to reflect upon and questions ones biases and assumptions in order to seek with as much rigor as possible for reasons why you current theory/theories are inadequate and how they could be made better, what further (critical) questions could be asked, what further tests/observations/experiments could be conducted or even just designed with the hope of arriving at further critical insights despite the physical/economic obstacles to actually carrying them out, etc.

In short, scientific theorizing involves the application of utmost rigor to hone the best possible explanations for what is and/or what is possible or impossible and explaining why.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

"theorizing" is wholly separate from the word theory in science. Theories are, as EB posted , bodies of knowledge that have been pretty well tested and studied .
"Theorizing" (the verb), however, is an active process of developing hypotheses or conducting "mind experiments". A theory (noun) is the generally accepted formal body of knowledge that surrounds an explantion of a phenom, and how that body of knowledge gets there and reinforces the explanation. The contents of a theory are well researched and duplicated. Field findings are studied by many unrelated but parallel disciplines to try to find any holes in the findings.
evidence gathered that way , and which supports and underpins the theory is among the most rigorously tested and cross investigated information .Teeny evidentiary components of a theory are often very important findings in all kinds of science disciplines. They often become the bases of awards like Nobel Prizes in Chem, Physics, and Medicine.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

please read up on science philosophy, like Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn etc.
You are so way off.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Ive actually had several discussions with Dr Feyerabend in the early 1980's . I had been developing aa team of new kids involved in applied geochemistry of metals and solutes. We were using soil and water analytical models in a "backward way ". He actually applauded the "multi purposing " of quantitation methods and he said that he actually never much considered that component(even though he was giving mass passes to supernatural inquiries which I kinda chuckle at).
In our case We agreed by model demonstrations that there is no proscribed methodology for sciences with more relying on the power of repeatability and what Gould said "If it works, theres gotta be some truth in there".
Im not familiar with Thomas Kuhn but generally my feeling about most Philosophers of Science is that they present us a" symbolic language" without much substance. They are often the "Dr Obvious" of science withdesires to xpand their analogies into many universes often without understanding fully the one that they started with.
Trip down memory lane, thanks.

0 Replies

please read up on science philosophy

2 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Quahog's just another clown sporting an anal -cranial inversion.

0 Replies

sigh. what a time waster. just read up on these things. Come on now!!!!

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Ive probably read more than you know exist. I just have yet to find some real"news" that doesnt involve generating new vocabularies for the same reason that Michael Jackson wore one glove. "Nobody Knows"

If it workd, test the **** out of it. If it tests out at a 99% rate, test the tests, leaarn why theres one anomaly in the test. Propose the evidence, and let others apply and test it.
Then youve got yourself some real evidence sonny.
Then try to see where the evidence fits. If it doesnt fit the theory, test the theory again.
Science isnt for armchair "einsteins", Vita ab Sciens , fuckin laborum est. (I just made that up George).

0 Replies

@farmerwhatever..

Well, it seems you are very unaware of a lot of things. Like experiments done in psychology and social psychology with regard to the process called 'science'.
You are awere that 'science' is done by 'people', yes ?? Hence the psychology. Just look at the flaws and stupidity and the hundreds of flaws made in the name of 'science'.

You are probably not even aware that people have deliberately send in 'peer reviewed' "research", ALL PHONEY! and yep, it was offically accepted.
Like ALL stupidty is officialy accepted. Like errrr let's see now... oh comes to mind.....evil-lotion! what a load of crap that is.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Youre delusional .
You think youve got something important to say yet you dont know a damn thing of what you speak.

0 Replies

well, you can spend your time better by reading up (on science of course, or even better on the psychology of ahum the religion called 'science') then by trying to react with strange postings.

0 Replies

I also wonder why go'ol logic isn't applied anymore on 'evil-lotion"
Oh oeps I think I know! there is no e....
yep!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"theorizing" is wholly separate from the word theory in science. Theories are, as EB posted , bodies of knowledge that have been pretty well tested and studied .

Don't buy into the fictions that words means something different than they mean because there is an (academic) institutional culture that territorializes them. 'Theory' and 'theorizing' are ultimately just what they mean.

Quote:

"Theorizing" (the verb), however, is an active process of developing hypotheses or conducting "mind experiments". A theory (noun) is the generally accepted formal body of knowledge that surrounds an explantion of a phenom, and how that body of knowledge gets there and reinforces the explanation.

Making theories requires theorizing. Scientists theorize to make theories. Then they critically discuss and refine and test them in various ways. That's scientific discourse. When you make claims about theories, theorizing, and science, you are engaging in discourse.

Quote:

The contents of a theory are well researched and duplicated. Field findings are studied by many unrelated but parallel disciplines to try to find any holes in the findings.
evidence gathered that way , and which supports and underpins the theory is among the most rigorously tested and cross investigated information .Teeny evidentiary components of a theory are often very important findings in all kinds of science disciplines. They often become the bases of awards like Nobel Prizes in Chem, Physics, and Medicine.

Your post contains too many assertions of status. If you take out all the status references, posturing, etc. you can just talk about what science is and not turn it into a competition with other forms of discourse.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

you really think youve got a ticket to understanding eh?
Its not me saying what I did. Its common usage in science disciplines within the introductory levels .
Someone can theorize why the earth is round , but an informal Geographic Theory is the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid and its definition ( on which every point on the surface of the earth i continuous and subtends a perpendicular line to the earths center)this is fully underpinned by factual evidence and measurements. "Theorizing" can actually be the verb that describes the path to a scientific theory, or,it also can be a wild ass guess that is dead wrong.

lo, you are again dead wrong about the word theory meaning the same all over. In science, as EB posted, theory has a fixed meaning, whereas in the American College Dictionary, theory has no less that 6 separate meanings (AS you know, often words DO have several distinct and separate meanings

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you really think youve got a ticket to understanding eh?
Its not me saying what I did. Its common usage in science disciplines within the introductory levels .
Someone can theorize why the earth is round , but an informal Geographic Theory is the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid and its definition ( on which every point on the surface of the earth i continuous and subtends a perpendicular line to the earths center)this is fully underpinned by factual evidence and measurements. "Theorizing" can actually be the verb that describes the path to a scientific theory, or,it also can be a wild ass guess that is dead wrong.

The bottom line is that deciding whether it's 'informal,' 'wild ass,' 'dead wrong,' etc. requires critical theorizing. Science and other forms of theory are done by thinking people since before they were called 'science' or 'theory.' The practice of thinking and subjecting one's thoughts to critical analysis to avoid them being wrong is how science began and how it continues.

0 Replies

You consistently display your ignorance. Scientists don't "theorize," they hypothesize. If a scientist's hypothesis is supported by the evidence, holds up under testing, is not falsified by evidence and testing and accounts for all data and phenomena, then it rises to the level of a theory. A theory is as close to truth as a scientific statement can attain. As for your idiotic statements from authority about language and what words mean, and leaving aside that there is absolutely no reason to assume that you are an authority on anything, language has special vocabularies for a host of subjects. The law is a wonderful example. It is a commonplace of science that newly discovered data will be given names which are formed from existing words. In quantum and particle physics, quarks are said to have strangeness, and/or charm.

Quite apart from that, language changes over time, and changes constantly. Three hundred years ago, "nice" meant the exact opposite of what it means today. Two hundred years ago, "practice" meant to deceive or swindle. Your consistently stupid remarks can be entertaining, but it gets tedious after a while, because you almost never know what the hell you're talking about.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know