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.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, for it to function as a test of the theory these inefficiencies would have to be unknown prior to the theory's conception (in some cases I'm sure this is true, in other cases it wouldn't be).

Not necessarily. A theory constructed on the basis of a given set of observations has already effectively passed the tests presented by those observation. If that weren't true we couldn't really theorize about everything. For example, if I say that eyes allow us to see my theory has implicitly passed the tests presented by the observed existence of eyes and sight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Did you see the dakka discussions thread were people were talking about how probability wasn't real? If you've been through that thread then nothing here could possibly worry you.

Not just that probability wasn't real, but that it wasn't real because improbable events occur. It hurt my head.

While what you're describing is relevant to determining the accuracy of the theory, I consider it to nonetheless be outside of the scientific method.

Orkeosaurus wrote:While what you're describing is relevant to determining the accuracy of the theory, I consider it to nonetheless be outside of the scientific method.

How so? The formulation of a hypothesis, which is essentially an untested theory, is central to the scientific method.

I'm talking about conclusions, not hypotheses.

I'm confused then, because it seems like you're talking about two different things. Are you talking about the whole scientific method, or just conclusions derived using the scientific method?

Because I think that, if you want to evaluate the extent to which a conclusion is scientific, you need to look at the method by which it was reached, and not just the conclusion itself. Essentially, if a conclusion was reached using the scientific method, then it is scientific.

Perhaps it would help if you explained what you consider the scientific method to be, because I'm not clear on where we're disagreeing.

Orkeosaurus wrote:What? You're going to have to explain this one to us!

Some of the best examples;

“I think that if the math-hammer route was completley true, you would never really get those 100-1 rolls, i think that you must have done something to please the dice gods”

“And even barring that statistics is a math anyway as the odds are infinitesimally small of rolling straight it is still a mathematical possibility.”

“Mathhammer is flawed in that nothing works how it should 100% of the time. Just because you SHOULD wound 4 times doesn't mean you will.”

“I hate Math-Hammer I have found it to be a total load of bollocks that very rarely works. It works if you take an average over a thousand games but that doesn't work for me because you can never add different circumstances into it.”



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I didn't mean the eye specifically, I meant things like men having nipples.

In that case there probably can't be a case for it, but with the eye there certainly is. Also women being poorly adapted to giving birth to babies with heads the size of human babies. It's understandable in terms of evolution, we've been adapting for intelligence so quickly (relatively speaking) and it's resulted in a rapid expansion in the size of the baby's head but women aren't that well adapted to birth of such a big thing. But it doesn't make much sense at all in terms of an intelligent creator, unless you consider that intelligent creator really didn't like women.


Thinking about it, are there any male mammals that don't have nipples?

By the way: GG, why would God put nipples on men? Especially if he dislikes homosexuality? That seems really weird.

I don't know about God, but if I was in charge I'd be putting nipples on everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:While what you're describing is relevant to determining the accuracy of the theory, I consider it to nonetheless be outside of the scientific method.

I know what you're getting at, and you're right that simply observing things and coming up with a reason why is just a hypothesis and not the full scientific process. But we've spent more than hundred years testing and refining Darwin's idea. It has demonstrated predictive power.

Darwin speculated that whales must have their origin in bears or a similar mammal that hunted fish by the shore, spending more and more time at sea and becoming better adapted to it. This idea was mocked, yet now we've found that very species in (going off of memory) Kazakstan. I mean, being able to say 'if this is true then we should be able to find XYZ out there' and having no reason to believe in XYZ beyond that theory... then finding XYZ is a very powerful thing.

dogma wrote:I'm confused then, because it seems like you're talking about two different things. Are you talking about the whole scientific method, or just conclusions derived using the scientific method?

Because I think that, if you want to evaluate the extent to which a conclusion is scientific, you need to look at the method by which it was reached, and not just the conclusion itself. Essentially, if a conclusion was reached using the scientific method, then it is scientific.

Perhaps it would help if you explained what you consider the scientific method to be, because I'm not clear on where we're disagreeing.

I'm talking about conclusions, and whether or not they are in fact derived from the scientific method.

Which I basically see as: make a hypothesis -> design an experiment with intent to prove or disprove it -> conduct experiment (in a controlled setting, etc) -> collect data from experiment -> analyze data -> make conclusion (possibly making a new hypothesis as well).

In this regard, observing something and coming up with a theory that explains it - and leaving it at that - is insufficient to reach a scientific conclusion. Either you only have a hypothesis, or you have a non-scientific conclusion.

Cutting open an eye to see if it's inefficiently designed might be enough to qualify as an experiment, but if you already know that men have nipples, then you don't really have the basis for an experiment (or even a quasi-experiment, really).

sebster wrote:I know what you're getting at, and you're right that simply observing things and coming up with a reason why is just a hypothesis and not the full scientific process. But we've spent more than hundred years testing and refining Darwin's idea. It has demonstrated predictive power.

Yep, I know. I'm just talking about science in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:“I think that if the math-hammer route was completley true, you would never really get those 100-1 rolls, i think that you must have done something to please the dice gods”

“And even barring that statistics is a math anyway as the odds are infinitesimally small of rolling straight it is still a mathematical possibility.”

“Mathhammer is flawed in that nothing works how it should 100% of the time. Just because you SHOULD wound 4 times doesn't mean you will.”

“I hate Math-Hammer I have found it to be a total load of bollocks that very rarely works. It works if you take an average over a thousand games but that doesn't work for me because you can never add different circumstances into it.”

Oh, it was one of those threads.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Yep, I know. I'm just talking about science in general.

Oh, in that case I agree. A lot of people confuse 'speculation from a guy in a lab coat' and tested, peer reviewed science.

It's just that I've seen people use doubts about some science to attempt to discredit any science they don't like, I thought you were trying to do that.

Oh, it was one of those threads.

They came up a bit? I thought I'd seen everything, and I've never seen that.

People have a tendency to equate average results with certain outcomes and cling to it with a death grip.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Which I basically see as: make a hypothesis -> design an experiment with intent to prove or disprove it -> conduct experiment (in a controlled setting, etc) -> collect data from experiment -> analyze data -> make conclusion (possibly making a new hypothesis as well).

You don't necessarily have to design an experiment. Much of the time you simply need to decide what to observe, and how you are going to interpret your observation, both given the hypothesis being tested.

My interpretation of the method is as follows:

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Test -> Conclusion

And I'm not convinced that they need to follow in that order, excepting the fact that conclusion must be at the end.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
In this regard, observing something and coming up with a theory that explains it - and leaving it at that - is insufficient to reach a scientific conclusion. Either you only have a hypothesis, or you have a non-scientific conclusion.

Honestly, I think it is. A lot of times the steps of experimentation and hypothesis formation are conflated; especially in the social sciences. I mean, ultimately observation isn't just looking at something; its looking at something in a manner that presumes more detail than is otherwise common.

I mean, Einstein wrote his paper on Brownian Motion by watching small particles moving in containers of water.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Cutting open an eye to see if it's inefficiently designed might be enough to qualify as an experiment, but if you already know that men have nipples, then you don't really have the basis for an experiment (or even a quasi-experiment, really).

See, I don't think that's the case. It seems to me that you're falling into the common trap of assuming that a study must produce novel conclusions in order to be worthwhile. The nipple case, for example, is clear grounds for experiment when considered in a vacuum. I know that the men I've seen without shirts have nipples, but I don't know that the statement "men have nipples" is true where the meaning of the statement is "all men have nipples". As such, I could devise a procedure (not necessarily an experiment) by which I would sellect a sample of men, or observe all men, and determine whether or not they had nipples.

Simply having a very strong suspicion of correctness such that we can say that we 'know' something does not preclude the possibility of empirically testing that suspicion. Moreover, even if we 'know' that all men have nipples because the study I described had been done before there would still be cause to call repeated experiments scientific despite repetition. After all, maybe all men had nipples before, but there isn't necessarily a reason to presume that they still do.

Manchu wrote:Something I've been meaing to post for a few days is a rejection of the notion that homosexuality is observed in non-human species. Sexual behaviors between animals of the same sex have been observed, but that alone is hardly what we mean by homosexuality when we're talking about people. It's like saying that lifelong mating is an observation of marriage among non-human species.

That's hardly a fair comparison unless you were to claim that marriage is somehow as natural a drive as sexual orientation. Regardless of marriage, which is a creation as a result of our complex societies, humans frequently do pair for life, and have done for millennia. Fundamentally, lots of people pair now and don't get married, and lots of animals pair for life. So the reflection in the animal kingdom isn't that far away.

If I had said "heterosexuality is observed in animals" would you have said "Sexual behaviors between animals of the opposite sex have been observed, but that alone is hardly what we mean by heterosexuality when we're talking about people. It's like saying that lifelong mating is an observation of marriage among non-human species".

Hardly, lifelong mating is an observation of lifelong mating in animals. And humans life long mate too, regardless of whether specific marriage customs are respected in that process.

Homosexuality is observed in animals as is heterosexuality, or at least equivalents of each, I'm not claiming there's a higher social element involved or that they feel love, but the behaviour does exist and animals exhibit heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality, and they also exhibit monogamy and polyamory, which humans do as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:The same kind of thing happened with the gay gene. The early scientific reports were wrong but people like howard treesong actually believe it to be true. Eugenics was also wrong but fooled a lot of people into believing it.

You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't bring up the Xq28 gene a specific example, you did. I've read around a bit more broadly than that, that why I keep talking about factors like prenatal hormones.

I heard Sir David Attenborough make the claim that bilateral symmetry in trilobytes "proves" evolution because almost all life has bilateral symmetry. I mean that is his example of actual proof? I actually laughed out loud at the absurdity, when I heard him say that. I mean there was no thought given to the "possibility" that it pleased the Creator to base his creations with bilateral symmetry.

Because bilateral symmetry is something shared by all organisms descended from a certain point. There is a lot of evidence supporting evolutionary statements like that one, more than enough to fill a thread like this one. Shrugging it off with "god probably liked it that way" really is laughable.

Did god like the way the human eye was designed? Because it's crap. We have a blind spot caused by the location of the optic nerve, a number of people whoa re colour blind and many people need glasses by the time they are adults. Clearly they weren't designed to last.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Especially if he(God) dislikes homosexuality? That seems really weird.

You think that's bad!? What about where the male g-spot is apparently located??

Before I'm taken literally, I'm not well read on the science of the g-spot.

sebster wrote:Oh, in that case I agree. A lot of people confuse 'speculation from a guy in a lab coat' and tested, peer reviewed science.

I'll tell you what people really confuse with actual science, this bs where some "scientific" survey claims that wearing red clothes makes you live longer or something, which appears in the newspapers and on main news for all of a day. Then when you look into it, you find that it's not actually received an academic publication, just a press release and there's no follow up research. Typically these 'silly season' stories are cooked up by a PR company working on behalf of a company making spreadable butter or clothes or something and want to promote a story to reach the newspaper. And yes, some scientist somewhere can usually be found to be paid to take a few hours to put his name to it and give a few quotes to a couple of newspapers. There might be some tiny worthless study done, but they then weave a story out of almost nothing. Real science involves the long process of official publication first, and usually there are no massive breakthroughs but a ever progressive creep over the years. But these stories are either not headline grabbing, or they are too complex for the public. So instead the science pages of the news like a story about how some spreadable butter "may make you see in the dark" better. Anyone work published in a national newspaper before an academic journal is highly suspect.

The problem is that a lot of people think that what appears in the newspapers is an accurate reflection of real science today. When the cuts were going to be announced in the UK it took all of a matter of minutes before I saw someone declaring that science could afford to be cut because we wouldn't have to see any more money wasted on science stories announcing like bleeding obvious like "watching too much TV makes you fat" or something equally dumb about spreadable butter products. But the fact is that these kind of dumb ass stories are not based on work that is government funded, they are PR companies hired by manufacturers trying to plant an idea in the mind of the public. Proper everyday science is not promoted in the media.

Howard A Treesong wrote:That's hardly a fair comparison unless you were to claim that marriage is somehow as natural a drive as sexual orientation. Regardless of marriage, which is a creation as a result of our complex societies, humans frequently do pair for life, and have done for millennia.

The comparison is only "unfair" because you are looking at it backwards. It's not the case that marriage need be a "natural drive" like sexual attraction (the word "orientation" is more problematic) but rather that human sexuality, like marriage, is--in your very apt description--"a creation as a result of our complex societies."

All of GGs pseudo Science is nonsense and which does not even warrant a response. Get your stuff peer reviewed and then astound the world with your findings.

Regards the gay thing, im pretty much 100% certain that you are biologically inclined to be attracted to said sex because i am a slave to my brain which demands i have sex with women. I do not have the urge to have sex with a man, and i am pretty sure I wouldnt be able to become erect enough to perform said act even if i wanted to (large sum of money or something)

Ergo, common sense tells me that your sexuality is predetermined unless you are privvy to something that could mentally screw you up. For example, i expect it is not uncommon for a girl who is sytematically raped at a young age by a male relative to become a lesbian in adulthood, but this would be relatively easy to explain.

But lets just be honest, if you have a nice normal life, and you grow up to be a nice normal adult, you KNOW what you fancy. Its not like all the straight guys in the world secretly have urges to go and get oiled up with the cast of "Queer eye"

And if you are demanding that this is not the case... and it is just a "lifestyle choice" that we all make.. well.. i think that says alot more about you then you should be confident telling people you dont know very well.

mattyrm wrote:All of GGs pseudo Science is nonsense and which does not even warrant a response. Get your stuff peer reviewed and then astound the world with your findings.

And then, literally right after that :

mattyrm wrote:Regards the gay thing, im pretty much 100% certain that you are biologically inclined to be attracted to said sex because i am a slave to my brain which demands i have sex with women.

You know who you remind me of, matty?



Woof!

Manchu wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:That's hardly a fair comparison unless you were to claim that marriage is somehow as natural a drive as sexual orientation. Regardless of marriage, which is a creation as a result of our complex societies, humans frequently do pair for life, and have done for millennia.

The comparison is only "unfair" because you are looking at it backwards. It's not the case that marriage need be a "natural drive" like sexual attraction (the word "orientation" is more problematic) but rather that human sexuality, like marriage, is--in your very apt description--"a creation as a result of our complex societies."

No but same-sex attraction is not a creation of societies, it just is what some animals and humans are driven to do. That's what I mean by homosexuality being expressed in animals. I'm not attempting to anthropomorphise them or label them with complex human qualities beyond the simple expression of the attraction. There's a fair bit of human baggage associated with the term homosexuality, but this doesn't change the fact that same-sex behaviour is observed in animals which is the point I've been making. The wiki page does have a paragraph at the start that tries to address this at the beginning. If the accurate term would merely be same-sex attraction then so be it, but it's a matter of etymology, it shouldn't change the fundamental point that same-sex sexual interactions and pairings are seen in the wild. There doesn't seem to be a better word to use for same-sex behaviour in animals but the context should make the difference.

I don't think that same-sex sexual behavior in giraffes indicates anything about same-sex behavior in dragonflies. Certainly neither has anything do with human sexuality. My point is that the attempt to draw inferences regarding social policy from such observations and comparisons has a strictly literary (at best) value. There is nothing "scientific" about it, at least not in the sense that people use the word "scientifc" to validate their opinions.

Here's an interesting article on the attempt to do that sort of thing with ants, regarding the encouragement in humans of traits like industriousness and obedience:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR35.5/gordon.php

Manchu wrote:

mattyrm wrote:All of GGs pseudo Science is nonsense and which does not even warrant a response. Get your stuff peer reviewed and then astound the world with your findings.

And then, literally right after that :

mattyrm wrote:Regards the gay thing, im pretty much 100% certain that you are biologically inclined to be attracted to said sex because i am a slave to my brain which demands i have sex with women.

You know who you remind me of, matty?



Woof!

I seriously think you should ask that your username be changed.

That guy is awesome, so i would, but.. you know, i didnt go for a fancy nickname, my actual name is Matty so.. im pretty happy with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and he is attractive to every woman he seems to come into contact with. I once got punched in the throat by a woman i propositioned suggestively in a kebab shop so i can merely say "most" and as a result i am unworthy of Flashhearts name.

Manchu wrote:I don't think that same-sex sexual behavior in giraffes indicates anything about same-sex behavior in dragonflies. Certainly neither has anything do with human sexuality. My point is that the attempt to draw inferences regarding social policy from such observations and comparisons has a strictly literary (at best) value.

Actually I claim social policy is to be base on the fact that homosexuality is harmless and consensual. For instance, I've said that even if it were a 'choice' to be gay, that's no reason for it not to be treated equally to heterosexuality. The point about it existing in numerous other animals is to counter the claims that it is a matter of choice and that it isn't natural. Animals to my knowledge aren't considered sentient and capable of making lifestyle choices like humans, their behaviour is largely instinctual. So same sex activity occurring in the animal kingdom particularly among higher organisms like mammals, particularly primates, is both a sign of it being 'natural' and an indicator that it operates on a level beyond simple 'choice'.

When people say that homosexual acts are not "natural," I don't think the language they're evoking is about whether or not such acts are "found in nature." I think there is an unconcious latency in thought process; a throw back to (or half-remembering of) neo-scholastic jargon about morality. Whether or not the ruins of this philiosphical perspetive in the mind of one individual or another consititutes a sound basis for their opinions, pointing at some animals having same-sex intercourse is not a meaningful response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:So same sex activity occurring in the animal kingdom particularly among higher organisms like mammals, particularly primates, is both a sign of it being 'natural' and an indicator that it operates on a level beyond simple 'choice'.

Also, you're still assuming that "it" is a universal thing. Homosexuality (if we have to call it that) in animals is not the same thing as homosexuality in humans.

Manchu wrote:When people say that homosexual acts are not "natural," I don't think the language they're evoking is about whether or not such acts are "found in nature."

That is odd because I have found that they usually mean exactly that: it is against (what is perceived to be) the natural order.

I'm not claiming that people have a good understanding of their attempts to use neo-scholastic terminology. The phrase "natural order" does not merely refer to whatever is in nature. So, for example, the violence of nature is not usually a part of this moral vision of society. I think the use of such a phrase regarding sexuality--again, reflecting its neo-scholastic origin--has to do with the concept that reproduction validates sexuality.

Coming back at people with an overly literal contradiction of their ideas, even when they're also being overly literal, does not foster any genuine understanding. I think that's exactly what makes people like GG say that they're suspicious of "science."

The problem with your statement (besides possibly mis-using neo-Scholastic) is that it seems that you creating an ideal situation where you can refute something by ignoring the reality of that thing. Or to put it more simply, you are warping the use to what you want it to mean, so that you are right.

I can see what Manchu means though with "natural" and "unnatural" as more of a colloquial meaning. Society may say 'It seems (more) natural for opposite genders to express romantic love than same gendered people'. Referring to morays and 'laws' that bind the group into a society. But the word natural is, in its broadest meaning, that which occurs in the physical world. If it's possible it is natural or able to occur. When I hear unnatural I think beyond that which is possible/read as Cthulu mythos unnatural.

*edited for clarity

@Ahtman: There is the possibility that Person X's qualification of homosexuality in humans only reflects Person X's ignorance of certain animal behaviors. I think it's a rather insignificant possibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Oh and he is attractive to every woman he seems to come into contact with. I once got punched in the throat by a woman i propositioned suggestively in a kebab shop so i can merely say "most" and as a result i am unworthy of Flashhearts name.

I'm sure the same thing happened to Lord Flasheart in one of his lives. He likely just punched her back.

WOOF!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrwhoop wrote:I can see what Manchu means though with "natural" and "unnatural" as more of a colloquial meaning.

Well, what I really mean is that people are referring to a very techinical term in an unintentionally colloquial way. People talk about science in this way all the time (see this thread) but somehow forget that we also talk about morality in this way all the time.

Right, right. Like how something is only a 'theory' like it's an idea you're mechanic said might be wrong with your car when a scientific theory is an accepted set of evident laws which in turn is a rigorously tested hypothesis. Idea/observation, hypothesis, law, and then theory. It's a long road and not to be said lightly.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
No but same-sex attraction is not a creation of societies, it just is what some animals and humans are driven to do.

I'm not necessarily sure that's true. We don't really know enough about neuroscience and the way in which the brain is affected by its environment in order to say that with any certainty. Particularly given that homosexual behavior, literally the tendency to engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex, is only ever witnessed amongst social species. At least as far as I know.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a better word to use for same-sex behaviour in animals but the context should make the difference.

Absolutely. For example, no one would argue that describing the sexual behavior of wolves was tantamount to imposing human sexual qualities on observed patterns. The use of the word 'homosexuality' shouldn't be any different.

dogma wrote:For example, no one would argue that describing the sexual behavior of wolves was tantamount to imposing human sexual qualities on observed patterns

That is something that the observer should be aware of, however, and avoid. Similarly, a person reading about those observations should also be aware of it.

Also, I would argue that Howard's post are an example of context not making the difference.

Its all a moot point anyway, as the argument against homosexuality from nature is self-refuting. Homosexuals plainly exist (at least ignoring arguments from delusion) and are therefore natural, because everything is natural by definition.

Really I think "its observed in nature" reply grants the argument more credit than it deserves. Especially since, even we're positing a dichotomy of natural qualities and human qualities, homosexuality in humans would be necessarily unnatural by virtue of being human; rendering the 'unnatural' argument nonsensical.