Is the Universe Conscious?

[Chizzang]

All I know is that this "falsifiability" thing is a crock. "Falsifiability" is not a rule of science. It's not part of the scientific method at all. It's just a concept a philosopher came up with. And to me it's pretty obviously nonsense.

I think the piece at http://www.courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astr ... index.html, while trying to tout falsifiability as a condition of being science, actually provides the opportunity to debunk the idea. Here's a quote:

Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements

An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

Ok. So what will you say if someone comes up with an approach they think will find a giant white gorilla living in the Himalayas then they find one? Are you going to say, "That doesn't count because your expectation wasn't falsifiable?"

That would be ridiculous. Which is why the whole load of crap about "falsifiability" is ridiculous. Science is about positive inference. To the extent that "falsifiability" is a factor, it's in "falsifying" the negative. Like for instance doing a statistical experiment to reject the null hypothesis that two things are the same in order to infer that they are different.

I totally agree John,
Certainly that falsifiability is a "philosophical conundrum" more than anything scientific...

It reminds me of the old philosophical proposal about the gold coin in one of my hands
If you choose wrong you only see an empty hand - at no point do you ever get to see the gold coin
But you can't prove it's NOT in the other hand

That's science bitch..!!!
Oh wait, that's a philosophical conundrum (never mind)

[Vidav]

Guys, when JSO comes out swinging against you and connects it is time to throw in the towel.

[Jjoey52]

Evolution is still nothing more than a theory, nothing proven. It takes a lot more faith to believe in things coming out of nowhere over a gazillion years than to believe in creation, I have said all I intend to.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Evolution is still nothing more than a theory, nothing proven. It takes a lot more faith to believe in things coming out of nowhere over a gazillion years than to believe in creation, I have said all I intend to.

You need to read a book Joey...
and I mean a real science book - evolution is observable - start there
Do some serious research

If you want to be taken seriously by anybody with a 100 IQ or higher
you really need to do some real honest work
You are embarrassing yourself

There's no shame in having faith
and believing in God - it's important to have your own ideas about the world

But you have to also do the work
Right now you appear poorly educated and fervently religious
and that's a dangerous combination buddy

[Ivytalk]

Guys, when JSO comes out swinging against you and connects, the shark has been jumped for good, and it's time to end the thread.

FIFY

[Ibanez]

Evolution is still nothing more than a theory, nothing proven. It takes a lot more faith to believe in things coming out of nowhere over a gazillion years than to believe in creation, I have said all I intend to.

You need to read a book Joey...
and I mean a real science book - evolution is observable - start there
Do some serious research

If you want to be taken seriously by anybody with a 100 IQ or higher
you really need to do some real honest work
You are embarrassing yourself

There's no shame in having faith
and believing in God - it's important to have your own ideas about the world

But you have to also do the work
Right now you appear poorly educated and fervently religious
and that's a dangerous combination buddy

Howard Johnson is right!

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I thought of another great example of the fallacy of the falsifiability thing. It's the search, within the science of astronomy, for planets in other star systems. They say they've detected some.

But the proposition that there are planets in other star systems is not falsifiable. Let's say they hadn't found any planets by now. That wouldn't mean the idea that there are other planets out there is falsified. And it never could be. The universe is simply to vast.

So now they say they've found some. Now, I'd say they are detecting them in an indirect way. But do we say that what they've been doing in the science of astronomy isn't "science" because the idea that there are planets in other star systems isn't "falsifiable?"

I personally think this whole "falsifiability" fad emerged specifically because people wanted to be able to say stuff like "intelligent design" can't be "science." They wanted a reason to point to. But it doesn't fly if you really think about it. If you want to say "intelligent design" isn't science you need to come up with something else.

[SeattleGriz]

Evolution is still nothing more than a theory, nothing proven. It takes a lot more faith to believe in things coming out of nowhere over a gazillion years than to believe in creation, I have said all I intend to.

You need to read a book Joey...
and I mean a real science book - evolution is observable - start there
Do some serious research

If you want to be taken seriously by anybody with a 100 IQ or higher
you really need to do some real honest work
You are embarrassing yourself

There's no shame in having faith
and believing in God - it's important to have your own ideas about the world

But you have to also do the work
Right now you appear poorly educated and fervently religious
and that's a dangerous combination buddy

What type of evolution is that?

[Vidav]

You need to read a book Joey...
and I mean a real science book - evolution is observable - start there
Do some serious research

If you want to be taken seriously by anybody with a 100 IQ or higher
you really need to do some real honest work
You are embarrassing yourself

There's no shame in having faith
and believing in God - it's important to have your own ideas about the world

But you have to also do the work
Right now you appear poorly educated and fervently religious
and that's a dangerous combination buddy

What type of evolution is that?

Evolution

[Vidav]

Evolution is still nothing more than a theory, nothing proven. It takes a lot more faith to believe in things coming out of nowhere over a gazillion years than to believe in creation, I have said all I intend to.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hey dingleberry. In science theory doesn't mean the same thing as in layman speak. Educate yourself, get outside of your comfort zone.

[SeattleGriz]

What type of evolution is that?

Evolution

And what evolution has been observed?

[Vidav]

Evolution

And what evolution has been observed?

Are you asking what has been seen by the human eye? Because evolution takes a very long time. Rather we can track changes.

[Grizalltheway]

Evolution

And what evolution has been observed?

http://gizmodo.com/scientists-have-disc ... 1764242517

[Vidav]

And what evolution has been observed?

http://gizmodo.com/scientists-have-disc ... 1764242517

FAKE NEWS!!!!

[SeattleGriz]

http://gizmodo.com/scientists-have-disc ... 1764242517

FAKE NEWS!!!!

Dammit! Beat me to it!

Actually, bacteria developing new traits isn't really new and isn't a point of argument I have really heard much about. Essentially, i think it is a non-starter in the conversation.

Would be interesting to figure out how this happened. Shock response was one of the most cool things I think I ever learned about in college. Not to say that is what it was, I was only giving insight to how cool/scary bacteria are.

Shock response is a last ditch effort by the bacteria in which they pretty much shuffle the DNA deck and hope whatever it is they come up with works. Now that is where you would see innovation. That deck isn't necessarily the whole DNA deck, but that portion the process controlled.

[Grizalltheway]

FAKE NEWS!!!!

Dammit! Beat me to it!

Actually, bacteria developing new traits isn't really new and isn't a point of argument I have really heard much about. Essentially, i think it is a non-starter in the conversation.

Would be interesting to figure out how this happened. Shock response was one of the most cool things I think I ever learned about in college. Gives great insight to how cool/scary bacteria are.

Shock response is a last ditch effort by the bacteria in which they pretty much shuffle the DNA deck and hope whatever it is they come up with works. Now that is where you would see innovation.

Or it could be that a new and abundant food source became available and the bacteria evolved to take advantage of it?

[SeattleGriz]

Dammit! Beat me to it!

Actually, bacteria developing new traits isn't really new and isn't a point of argument I have really heard much about. Essentially, i think it is a non-starter in the conversation.

Would be interesting to figure out how this happened. Shock response was one of the most cool things I think I ever learned about in college. Gives great insight to how cool/scary bacteria are.

Shock response is a last ditch effort by the bacteria in which they pretty much shuffle the DNA deck and hope whatever it is they come up with works. Now that is where you would see innovation.

Or it could be that a new and abundant food source became available and the bacteria evolved to take advantage of it?

Yes, but not macroevolution. Still the same bacteria. Microevolution, yes.

[SeattleGriz]

The interesting part about microevolution is the fact it pretty much appears to be real time. You move to the hot climate and pretty much immediately, your body is adapting epigenetically. Methyl groups on your DNA are able to influence your DNA. Not only that, but you can pass on those epigenetic factors. Mom's a fucking nut case??? Well, good chance mom passes some of that shit on!

Interesting.

[Vidav]

Or it could be that a new and abundant food source became available and the bacteria evolved to take advantage of it?

Yes, but not macroevolution. Still the same bacteria. Microevolution, yes.

Dana, my thought is, no matter the evidence presented you would find a reason to dismiss it. "oh that is macro not micro" or "oh that is a nothing burger vs a nothing taco"

[Grizalltheway]

Or it could be that a new and abundant food source became available and the bacteria evolved to take advantage of it?

Yes, but not macroevolution. Still the same bacteria. Microevolution, yes.

Right, macro happens over much longer periods of time; longer than any human is able to stick around and observe.

[SeattleGriz]

Yes, but not macroevolution. Still the same bacteria. Microevolution, yes.

Dana, my thought is, no matter the evidence presented you would find a reason to dismiss it. "oh that is macro not micro" or "oh that is a nothing burger vs a nothing taco"

Did you know that taco cat spelled backwards is taco cat? I don't care what you say, that will always be Cleats best contribution to this board. Bar none!

Not on all of it. I still see no reason why a person who believes in ID should have a problem with evolution. Why not allow other opinions on the areas you aren't having luck with? If they are wrong, they will go away. To me, ID only points out what I feel is obvious. Our shit is way too elegant and perfect to be by random chance.

In this instance, micro vs macro is a big instance. Micro just says we adapt as we live or beaks get shorter/longer as time progresses. Macro means new creations.