Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm surprised that you're willing to assign a normative value to scientific theories. Newtonian mechanics was seen as very good, and while still incredibly useful it turned out to be a pretty small facet of the full model.

Evolution is a very useful theory, and to that extent it's good. But in absolute terms, I'm not sure it's "truth" or "goodness" matters. What matters for science is it's utility.

To return to astronomy, geo-centrism was a good enough theory for it's time. It answered the questions they needed answered, it had predictive value, and most importantly, wasn't shown false by evidence. It did everything scienists of the time wanted and stayed useful despite theological and philisopical arguments about it. It wasn't until observation became good enough that planetary orbits started becoming increasingly difficult to model, and not due to any abstract debate, that it was dropped as a theory.

And that's my point: even if evolution is incorrect, like geocentrism was, it doesn't matter for 95% of the science done. It won't be abandoned due to abstract arguments, and it won't be completely thrown away. It will be replaced by something better. Scientists never discard a theory without haivng a better one to replace it, at least not as fundamental a theory as evolution.

If you don't find evolution credible (I dislike the idea of "Believing" in evolution, even if I use it as shorthand myself), then don't try poking holes in it. It doesn't matter how good it is (even though it's actually quite good), as long as it's the best theory, science is going to run with it. Instead, work on developing, or encouraging the development of, theories that you think better explain the diversity of life. Of course, you're restricted to theories that are empiracally based, testable, etc. really can't work.

This is why intilligent design isn't favored in science: not because it's bad or wrong, but because it's not useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:Was this thread neccesary? And why wasn't it closed when the OP's intentions were revealed?


You make me sad, dakka.

If we restricted discourse to what is necessary than the only thing said would be "where is the bathroom."

I don't think anybody here is speaking to the OP's question anymore, and a decent conversation has developed. Why shut it down?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Two amusing factoids.

1. Most people believe they are above average. This is because people with low cognitive skills do not possess the cognitive skills necessary to fully appraise their poor cognitive skills.

2. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems may show that it cannot be proven that 2+2=4, however this is not fully accepted by mathematicians, and depends on arguments about first and second order logic which I do not understand.

Also, has your avatar grown a 'tash? I've never noticed it before if not...

Yes, for Movember.

I am growing one IRL, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:Was this thread neccesary? And why wasn't it closed when the OP's intentions were revealed?


You make me sad, dakka.

Speaking as a moderator, I thought it would be impossible to troll the OT forum with evolution vs creationism, so the thread would die a natural death.

rubiksnoob wrote:Was this thread neccesary? And why wasn't it closed when the OP's intentions were revealed?


You make me sad, dakka.

Even though the OP turned out to be malintentioned, the discussion has turned interesting (IMO). A kind of happy accident. I don't have to agree with what is being discussed to learn a little something.

GG

Polonius wrote:I'm surprised that you're willing to assign a normative value to scientific theories. Newtonian mechanics was seen as very good, and while still incredibly useful it turned out to be a pretty small facet of the full model.

Evolution is a very useful theory, and to that extent it's good. But in absolute terms, I'm not sure it's "truth" or "goodness" matters. What matters for science is it's utility.

Then you can express it as 'when it has utility it is good' which is what I was saying.

The point is that a theory is legitimised by being than the alternative, it is legitimised by being useful, showing utility, being good...

And that's my point: even if evolution is incorrect, like geocentrism was, it doesn't matter for 95% of the science done. It won't be abandoned due to abstract arguments, and it won't be completely thrown away. It will be replaced by something better. Scientists never discard a theory without haivng a better one to replace it, at least not as fundamental a theory as evolution.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Science looks to disprove a model, regardless of whether or not a replacement model has been proposed.

This is why intilligent design isn't favored in science: not because it's bad or wrong, but because it's not useful.

Yeah, that's true. Thing is though, if holes were found in evolution we'd simply reject both creationism, and start trying to figure out something that was useful.

If we restricted discourse to what is necessary than the only thing said would be "where is the bathroom."

And the Ashes thread. Unless Australia is losing, of course, then I'll make sure that fether gets locked.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

asimo77 wrote:


In other words you just can't comprehend my arsesome finite mind

Corrected for veracity

Well at least someone is thinking of my butt. It's quite nice by the way.

Kilkrazy wrote:
2. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems may show that it cannot be proven that 2+2=4, however this is not fully accepted by mathematicians, and depends on arguments about first and second order logic which I do not understand.

Well, it shows that no consistent system can prove its own consistency. This is relevant to computer science, but not necessarily to human activity, which lacks the finite nature of computer science.

dogma wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
2. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems may show that it cannot be proven that 2+2=4, however this is not fully accepted by mathematicians, and depends on arguments about first and second order logic which I do not understand.

Well, it shows that no consistent system can prove its own consistency. This is relevant to computer science, but not necessarily to human activity, which lacks the finite nature of computer science.

You talking bad 'bout computers? HOW DARE YOU!