Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:32 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
10 red flag warnings for pseudoscience 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: 10 red flag warnings for pseudoscience
Quote:
I didnt need the Stanford E to know that it was not a discarded criteria.


A common critique of abiogenesis is that it's not falsifiable. In the context of the post, that's what you were arguing. But that critique uses naive falsification, claiming that abiogenesis is a conjecture rather than a hypothesis. That use of falsification has been discarded, by even Popper himself. Falsification is still used, albeit in a modified form. "Discarded as instrumental" is not the same thing as discarded altogether.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:22 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: 10 red flag warnings for pseudoscience
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
I didnt need the Stanford E to know that it was not a discarded criteria.


A common critique of abiogenesis is that it's not falsifiable. In the context of the post, that's what you were arguing. But that critique uses naive falsification, claiming that abiogenesis is a conjecture rather than a hypothesis. That use of falsification has been discarded, by even Popper himself. Falsification is still used, albeit in a modified form. "Discarded as instrumental" is not the same thing as discarded altogether.


Youre attempting to save face here more than anything else. I appreciated your intellectual humility when you admitted you were wrong (dead wrong, actually) when you claimed that falsification was dismissed from the practice of science You should have left it at that.

"Modifying" falsification/testability to a degree to suit a hypothesis would put at risk the goal of an unbiased conclusion.

Tweaking testability is also a concern as it relates to keeping science honest. One would have to immediately question why it would be necessary to modify the testability of a hypothesis such as aB. I am not sure what are the terms aB is working with and how those terms relate to auxiliary hypothesis of aB, and how sound the terms are. I don't know. I'm an armchair lover of Philosophy of Science and am not a scientist involved in the particulars of aB.
Do you know the answers to those questions? Let me know.

You are being presumptuous here with Popper as it relates directly to aB
Popper dismissed his idea that evolution itself was not and should not be considered pseudo science. To my knowledge, he had no chance to chime in on aB and you shouldn't be speaking for him here (which essentially you are). Did he? Prove me wrong then.
aB seems to be a rather extreme extension of the theory of evolution which deals with the process of evolutionary development and NOT Origins.



Last edited by ant on Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:47 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: 10 red flag warnings for pseudoscience
Quote:
Youre attempting to save face here more than anything else. I appreciated your intellectual humility when you admitted you were wrong (dead wrong, actually) when you claimed that falsification was dismissed from the practice of science You should have left it at that.


Show me where I said "falsification is dismissed from the practice of science."

Quote:
To my knowledge, he had no chance to chime in on aB and you shouldn't be speaking for him here (which essentially you are). Did he? Prove me wrong then.


I have no idea if he chimed in on abiogenesis. I'm sure there are quotes out there to be mined, if you're interested.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:27 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: 10 red flag warnings for pseudoscience
Quote:
Show me where I said "falsification is dismissed from the practice of science."


Now you're going to play semantic games with this.

Quote:
Interbane wrote:
Falsification has also been discarded as instrumental in science. I'm sure Popper is turning over in his grave at not being able to defend his ideas.


You're getting really weak here with this childish quibbling.



Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:28 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: 10 red flag warnings for pseudoscience
Quote:
You're getting really weak here with this childish quibbling.


"Discarded as instrumental" means "no longer instrumental". It doesn't mean "discarded altogether". What you're calling 'quibbling over semantics' is 'paying attention to detail,' which you seem incapable of.

I provided plenty of support showing that falsification is no longer instrumental. When it comes to abiogenesis, your naive falsification has been discarded altogether, rather than 'discarded as instrumental'.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:10 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: 10 red flag warnings for pseudoscience
I will no longer respond to your posts but not discard them altogether.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Interbane
Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:36 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank