/sci/ - Science & Math

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

in essence, evolution is a Catch 22 of science. If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:

1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"

2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"

same with homosexuality:
1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival
2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth

Im not even memeing, this shit is discussed
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/

its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself

>>9654663
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

so, what is falsifiability?
Its one of the req for a theory to be scientific - Popper, the smart kike, brought attention it.

examples of unfalsifiable claims:
>Jesus will come back
>"Im not a racist. Racist confrmed, only a racist would deny that he is racist"
>Catch 22 - too crazy to fly therefore ideal for a pilot

so you see, there are far more visible examples of lack of falsifiability in IRL world, bigger problem are less visible examples like theory of evolution.

***BIG BRAIN NIBBAS ONLY***

What makes science a science?

science=application of scientific method
scientific method=empirical hypothesis testing

notice the last part - testing. in order to test it, hypothesis has to be testable. So where does falsifiability come in play here? Notice that the conclussion comes from empirical observation, so we actually make a logical fallacy in ALL legit scientific conclussions because we jump from inductive to deductive reasoning.

So, possibility of falsification in a way proves that therory comes from empirical observation (remember that in science we jump from induction to deduction which we dont do in logic), its POTENTIAL faultiness is a proof for its validity.

theory of evolution DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR FAULTINESS.

>>9654660
>what should be discovered in order to disprove evolution?
It's very simple, just show that the heritable traits of populations don't change. This could be done by showing that mutations do not effect traits, mutations don't occur, mutations are not heritable, etc. These are all empirical statements that could be proven false at any time.

>>9654684
things that dont prove evolution:
>esch coli exp
>DNA
>mutations
>all kinds of observable natural selection processes

for you brainlets out there, mentioned examples are NECESSERY proofs for evolution but not GOOD ENOUGH. You are making a fallacy if you mix those 2 kind of proofs. Not to mention the 4.5 billion time gap requires a shit ton of proof.

>e.g. - "Robber was a tall man with brown eyes". Police pick a suspect with brown eyes and arrest him.

All of the mentioned you can perfectly fit in CREATIONISM paradigm and could be used to explained biodiversity.

>>9654697
>mutations therefor 4.5 billion

rediculout f a m. read my exp above

>>9654717
That doesn't respond to what I said. You asked for how evolution is falsifiable. I gave you several ways in which it is. Why is change in heritable traits in a population unfalsifiable?

>>9654730
>Why is change in heritable traits in a population unfalsifiable?

how dense are you?

change in heritable traits IS falsifiable and even observable, but it DOES NOT prove evolution. You can argue for creationism and genetics and genetical change fit it.

>>9654743
>change in heritable traits IS falsifiable and even observable, but it DOES NOT prove evolution.
Change in the heritable traits of a population is evolution. So you just admitted your entire argument is wrong.

/thread

>>9654660
evolution is absolutely falsifiable. it predicts a fossil record, rates of genetic drift, etc. etc. if we found evidence that the earth was in fact 6 thousand years old and humans had spontaneously appeared back then in their present form, the evolutionary theory of man would be disproved. falsifiability is not the same as >>9654717 "provability". No theorem can be proved without accepting some axioms as true.

>>9654730
here for more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

tldr-genetics is obviously not sufficient proof for 4.5 or who knows how much years

>>9654755
>Change in the heritable traits of a population is evolution. So you just admitted your entire argument is wrong.

in what fallactical logical universe?

>>9654758
human fossil records are a total joke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

carbon dating in evolution has rediculous methodology of dating, ask archeologists.

>falsifiability is not the same as >>9654717 (You) "provability". No theorem can be proved without accepting some axioms as true.

That doesnt mean that theorem is not falsifiable.
I dont think you understood me. Evolution is entirely circular.

>>9654769
goalpost shifting -- you and your dumb ass started your dumb ass thread with the thesis that evolution is not falsifiable. the chorus of responses here demonstrates that your ass is dumb and your thesis a shit.

>>9654769
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
You seem to be confusing empirical facts with logical proofs.

>tldr-genetics is obviously not sufficient proof for 4.5 or who knows how much years
I'm not simply talking about genetics, I'm talking about evolution. You just admitted evolution is falsifiable and observable, contrary to your OP. So delete this thread and try again, this time without resting your entire argument on a claim which you then admit a few minutes later to be false.

>in what fallactical logical universe?
I don't know what you think that means. Evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population. You just said that evolution is falsifiable and observable.

>>9654783
>goalpost shifting

you learned that term on re**it together with "congitive dissonance" didnt you?

>>9654787
>You seem to be confusing empirical facts with logical proofs.

*logical REASONING. science doesnt use it?

>You just admitted evolution is falsifiable and observable

where? are you having hallucinations?

>Evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population.

no you total imbecile, evolution is CROSS SPECIES, not just genetical change, but CROSS SPECIES MUTATION, ergo you have necessery but dont have sufficient proof. Oh yeah, lets just ad 4.5 billion years.
I fucking loooove science!

>>9654806
>I'm going to keep being stupid and YOU CAN'T STOP ME
Okay.

>>9654697
Scientific method 101: proving that a phenomenon doesn't exist in an infinite (not in the sense "unbounded") universe is impossible.

>>9654758
>it predicts a fossil record, rates of genetic drift
Bullshit. If we discovered 500-million-year-old dinosaur fossils, we'd change the time scale, or philogenetic tree at best, but not the theory.

>if we found evidence that the earth was in fact 6 thousand years old
Proving the earth is no more than 6,000 years old is equivalent to proving it didn't exist before. See above.

Yeah, evolution is unfalsifiable.

>>9654814
>If we discovered 500-million-year-old dinosaur fossils, we'd change the time scale, or philogenetic tree at best, but not the theory.

this is a very good example f a m!
todays biologists seem to be quite anti-intellectul people.

>>9654806
>*logical REASONING. science doesnt use it?
The use of logical reasoning does not mean that logic is equivalent to science. Evidence for a scientific theory will always be insufficient to prove it, since a theory is not a proof, and is falsifiable.

>where? are you having hallucinations?
Right here >>9654743
"change in heritable traits IS falsifiable and even observable"

>no you total imbecile, evolution is CROSS SPECIES
Evolution from one species to another is a change in the heritable traits of a population, how is it not falsifiable?

And again, you should delete your thread since it didn't say cross-species evolution is not falsifiable, it said evolution is not falsifiable. But you just admitted that's not true.

>>9654814
>If we discovered 500-million-year-old dinosaur fossils, we'd change the time scale, or philogenetic tree at best, but not the theory.

scratch that, if we founded out the Earth is 500 billion years old instead of 4.5. billion, we still wouldnt change the theory despite it being so off.

>>9654826
>since a theory is not a proof, and is falsifiable.

correct, ergo evolutions is not science.

>"change in heritable traits IS falsifiable and even observable"

and? what do you conclude for it?

>Evolution from one species to another is a change in the heritable traits of a population, how is it not falsifiable?

NEVER PROVEN, never observed, 0 proof.
>"God exists, but you cant prove him."
still the paradigm.

>>9654814
>Scientific method 101: proving that a phenomenon doesn't exist in an infinite (not in the sense "unbounded") universe is impossible.
I didn't demand you falsify anything outside the observable universe. You can falsify it right here.

>>9654830
>correct, ergo evolutions is not science.
So now you're saying evolution is a proof? You just said it's falsifiable and observable, so that can't be right.

>and? what do you conclude for it?
Look at the posts in the thread you're replying to.

>NEVER PROVEN, never observed, 0 proof.
That doesn't respond to what you're quoting. How is it not falsifiable?

If changes in the heritable traits of a population is falsifiable then anything which depends on that occurring must be falsifiable. Thus cross-species evolution must be falsifiable by your own words.

>>"God exists, but you cant prove him."
>still the paradigm.
I don't see how this responds to anything I said.

>>9654828
hey retard: this is exactly how popperian science works. when your model fails it is falsified, then you revise your model. evolution is an umbrella term. hope this helps you in your quest to stop being retarded. actually scratch that, I hope you die in a grease fire.

>>9654830
>Evolution exists, but you cant prove it.
still the paradigm.

>>9654839
>You just said it's falsifiable and observable, so that can't be right.

dont you have no shame to blatantly lie like that? I specifically said that genetical change is observable.

>If changes in the heritable traits of a population is falsifiable then anything which depends on that occurring must be falsifiable.

WITHIN SPECIES YOU FUCKING MORON

>Thus cross-species evolution must be falsifiable by your own words.

WITHIN SPECIES YOU FUCKING MORON

>>9654842
>when your model fails it is falsified, then you revise your model

meaning, you just add billions of years into Black science Bill Nye ultra galactic black whole? brilliant. you should do a Ted talk.

>>9654855
>dont you have no shame to blatantly lie like that? I specifically said that genetical change is observable.
Genetical is not a word. You said that "change in heritable traits IS falsifiable and even observable." Evolution is a change in the heritable traits of a population.

>WITHIN SPECIES YOU FUCKING MORON
If changes within species are falsifiable then changes from one species to another are falsifiable since they depend on changes within species. So now you have admitted that evolution between species is falsifiable. We're making a lot of progress.

>>9654865
>You said that "change in heritable traits IS falsifiable and even observable." Evolution is a change in the heritable traits of a population.

and how on Earth do you have the legitimacy to just jump from observable WITHIN SPECIES to unobservable, untestable, unprovable with scientific 0 date of BETWEEN SPECIES evolution.

>If changes within species are falsifiable then changes from one species to another are falsifiable since they depend on changes within species

you are braindead.

>>9654873
>and how on Earth do you have the legitimacy to just jump from observable WITHIN SPECIES to unobservable, untestable, unprovable with scientific 0 date of BETWEEN SPECIES evolution.
As I already said, evolution between species is dependent on changes within species. Evolution between species is simply the result of many changes within species. If you falsify the latter then you falsify the former. Please explain to me how changes within species can be falsified without falsifying change from one species to another. You keep avoiding this question.

>you are braindead.
Not an argument. If you don't have a counter argument then you concede the point. Now delete this thread and try again using what you've admitted here.

>>9654883
>Evolution between species is simply the result of many changes within species.

What makes you think those changes even exist?
do you have any proof for it?

>>9654886
Excuse me, but that doesn't respond to what I said. We're talking about whether it's falsifiable. Once you admit evolution from one species to another is falsifiable, or give a relevant counterargument that proves your side, then we can move on to other topics.

>>9654894
>We're talking about whether it's falsifiable.

and you dont even know what that word means

>>9654898
I don't see an argument anywhere. So you admit evolution from one species to another is falsifiable, correct?

>>9654901
>So you admit evolution from one species to another is falsifiable

yes, theory of evolution v1 stated as simply cross-species mutation can be falsified. considering the proofs, its falcification proves it wrong since there are no proofs.

todays theory of evolution v2 of 4.5. billion is not falsifiable.

>>9654660
Evolution and survival of the fittest is a logical concept more-so than it is a scientific hypothesis.

That doesn't mean it's wrong, but you don't go out and look for empirical evidence for logical statements. That would be like testing associativity of addition by arranging groups of objects and counting them for a large number of trials.

>>9654917
>That doesn't mean it's wrong,

I havent even said that, it might be right theoretically speaking but it isnt science.

>but you don't go out and look for empirical evidence for logical statements.

you just described the scientific method - hypothesis testing.

>>9654913
>todays theory of evolution v2 of 4.5. billion is not falsifiable.
What exactly are you referring to?

Whatever it is, if it depends on changes in heritable traits of a population it must be falsifiable.

>>9654913
>considering the proofs, its falcification proves it wrong since there are no proofs.
Not proving something does not falsify it. Try again.

>>9654929
>Not proving something does not falsify it.

yes it does if you the evidence doesnt fit in the theory. you total mong.

>>9654925
>if it depends on changes in heritable traits of a population it must be falsifiable.

God exists and Jesus is coming soon.

>>9654935
I'm having trouble interpreting your post into English. No, not proving something does not falsify it. For example, not proving the Reimann hypothesis does not falsify the Reimann hypothesis.

>>9654660
Evolution is a statistical phenomenon and is trivially true.

The real issue with evolution is that contrary to any other physical phenomenon, it has been deformed into a moral message.
-Magnets *shoudn't* attract metal (it just something which happens)
-gravity *is not* the "duty" for objects to fall in gravitational fields.

-Phenomena aren't intrinsically "bad" or "good". Depending on the circumstances, they'll work for us or against us.
Water evaporation isn't intrinsically bad or good. It is good if you want to operate a steam machine, bad if you're too close to the steam and get burned.
X rays aren't intrinsically good nor bad; are good if you need an medical exam but may do harm if used unproperly.
Snow isn't intrinsically good or bad. It is good if you're a ski athlete or a ski resort owner, bad if you live in the street and so on.

What happened with evolution? Why have people produced so huge amounts of BLATANT MORAL BULLSHIT when it was discovered? Darwinism, a mere natural phenomenon like magnets or X-ray, has been used countless times in completely wrong moral messages, moral justification of all sort of crimes, horror, when the harm people experiendced were seen as unconditionally good. Poor people die of starvation? Darwinism. Some kid gets critically injured because of a dumb mistake? Darwinism. Black people lahhing behind in academia/economy? Darwinism.

Ok let push he crap as far as we can now.
-Medecine and epsecially child -medecine are anti darwinian in nature since they consist exactly in allowing people to pass their genes after having survived diseases (you can't refute this).
-SCHOOLS SHOOTING ... are darwinian (it is one of the purest example ... they remove people who aren't fit enough to avoid bullets from the gene pool before they have the opportunity to reproduce). TRY TO REFUTE THIS IF YOU CAN !!!
(well you could if you quit equating darwinism with an all encompassing moral duty)

>>9654945
That doesn't respond to what you're quoting, try again.

>>9654947
welfare is evil because it pays the unfit to procreate

>this retard again

>>9654924
I agree, evolution itself is not science. Proposed mechanisms of action, and specific hypothesis about it are.

Pure logic is math, not science. Formal logic, the rules of arithmetic, and their consequential logical consequences exist above science in a sense, because the framework for testing these things must assume they are true in the first place.

How do you calculate p-values when you're testing if addition works?

>>9654947
(continued)
other example where darwinism is bad: the increasing bug resistance to antibiotics, leading soon to a potential health disaster: this is a good example where darwinism works against every human (the whole society will pay).

Darwinism can be good of course in certain cases. (The development of a good strategy in some sport or game, or economics stuff is essentially darwinian; Neural network AI is loosely inspired by evolution; many of the biological things that make you alive and healthy can be tracked back to evolutionary processes of course, although it is largely debatable that mankind has still to go through this)
Anyway stop with darwinism as the ultimate message on life. This is dumb.

>>9654952
Parasitism is darwinian... There are a lot of parasite species in nature. In some case the host can have evolutionary advantages for it.

>>9654947
>>9654960
>The real issue with evolution is that contrary to any other physical phenomenon, it has been deformed into a moral message.

you can argue that, sure, I agree the whole lifestyle, "next evo step" is pure memes.
but the crucial problem of it - methodology, is that its entirely unfalsifiable.
And when you "test" it (you cant scientifically test a circualar hypothesis) people make logical fallacies by equating it with natual selection.

>>9654958
>Proposed mechanisms of action, and specific hypothesis about it are.

natural selection and genetics are falsifiable and factual. Unlike (them x 4.5 billion y) + add cross species mutation.

>>9654957
>not that retard again

>>9654951
>>9654946
not an argument.

>>9654973
The second post you're linking is an argument. The first is not an argument since there is no argument to respond to.

>>9654971
Before considering falsification, precise statements are to be made first (that doesn't seem easy to do). Saying that environemental pressure will shape species over a more or less extended period of times remains vague.
Yet the vague message above seem to match with what countless of breeders did successfully , or people who grew plants at an industrial scale.
Refutability is just a tool to get reliable knowledge rather than an iron rule (the way some people discard brutally math as a science for this reason is excessive; in math we DO know things for sure).

>>9654971
>natural selection and genetics are falsifiable and factual. Unlike (them x 4.5 billion y) + add cross species mutation.

Certain aspects of evolution of the species we see around us are falsifiable. The hypothesis that we come from a common ancestor and we experience mutations that give us variance of traits is a falsifiable statement.

But what I'm referring to is the statement "given some population and an environment, over time the population will display more traits of those successful in surviving to the next generation", which is just a logical statement. Of course you'll see more of the ones that successfully navigate the environment and reproduce, that would be something you use to infer the actual testable information

>>9654991
>Yet the vague message above seem to match with what countless of breeders did successfully , or people who grew plants at an industrial scale.

this is a theory going back to 4.5 billion years, we need more than "seem to match" because Lamarckism also seemed to match obeservations.

>Refutability is just a tool to get reliable knowledge rather than an iron rule

Strongly disagree. Refutabilism is the corner stone of science and proves you are dealing with empirical findings and not semantics >>9654684.

Remove refutabilism and youll end up in "God/Evolution made it that way because..." type studies, you already are in that "science as mythology" phase actually.

>>9654998
>we come from a common ancestor and we experience mutations that give us variance

only the 2nd part is falsifiable. You cant sufficiently (!) prove common anscestory by genetic similarity.

>"given some population and an environment, over time the population will display more traits of those successful in surviving to the next generation", which is just a logical statement.

correct, but that is just basic natural selection, obeserved all around. not evolution.

>>9655021
>correct, but that is just basic natural selection, obeserved all around. not evolution.

What's the simplest definition of evolution in your view then?

>>9655032
>simplest definition of evolution

4.5 billion and cross species

>>9655021
How is IQ science while most people never take the official test, which content changes all the time, whose half of the questions are watered own math?

IQ measures the ability to pass IQ tests.

>start thread claiming evolution isn't real because it's not falsifiable
>ignore all the people posting examples that, if found, would falsify natural selection
>get super autismal about vestigial features without even understanding what they are
>when someone conclusively disproves one of your claims with cited evidence, call them names and insist that they just proved you right
>be unable to understand simple reasoning
>thread hits bump limit and dies a merciful death
>make same thread next day

another day in the life of your average creationist fuckwit

>>9655072
>How is IQ science while most people never take the official test,

why is that relevant?

>which content changes all the time

why is that relevant?

>whose half of the questions are watered own math?

that is what she said

>>9655077
>>ignore all the people posting examples that, if found, would falsify natural selection

not one posted, you can make a difference. be free to do so faggot.

>>9655034
>4.5 billion and cross species

??

>>9655081
>which content changes all the time

>why is that relevant?

Experimental results must be reproductible.

>>9655084
>??

?

>>9655086
>Experimental results must be reproductible.

and IQ is...unlike evolutionary mythology.

>>9654873
>muh microevolution
>but not muh macroevolution!
learn2incrementalism
pic related

>>9654886
>What makes you think those changes even exist?
directly observing them in nature.
see: sympatric speciation in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella

>>9654913
>theory of evolution v2 of 4.5. billion
the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
if you want to argue about the age of the earth, we can talk about radiochronology instead, but that's not evolution.

>>9655088
>?

?????

>>9654660
Okay, I read some of the responses to you and you don't seem to really get it, and I think the reason is because you're misusing the word Evolution.

If you're defining Evolution as anything other than the idea that passing on of heritable traits across generations causes changes to populations, you don't know what Evolution is. Argue against what you want to argue against: Anti-Creationism.

>>9655081
>faggot
why the homophobia?

If you find a large population of organisms that has heritable variation in a certain trait and lives in an environment in which some variations in that trait make their bearer more likely to successfully reproduce and leave more viable offspring, but the population does NOT undergo some change in the relative frequencies of variations in that trait, you will have falsified evolution through natural selection.

alternately, find a rabbit preserved in Archaean sediments to falsify geologic history (which is really what you seem to have a problem with, given your incessant blubbering about 4.5 billion years)

>>9655034
The age of the Earth is proven by radiometric dating, not evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

>>9654660
You're right, evolution isn't a theory. Natural selection is a theory. Evolution is a sure thing, because we can see it happen. To disprove natural selection you'd simply need to show the actual cause of evolution.

>>9655021
>science:
>sub-species
>IQ
>procreation
I refuse to believe this shit is not a troll.

>>9655101
>sympatric speciation in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella

what about it are you going to observe natural selection and claim it was a proof of cross species evolution like you did with eschericia coli exp?


>>9655119
>If you find a large population of organisms that has heritable variation in a certain trait and lives in an environment in which some variations in that trait make their bearer more likely to successfully reproduce and leave more viable offspring

that is natural selection/microevolution. 0 proof of cross species evolution, but that wont stop you from writing an SF novel about it.

>find a rabbit preserved in Archaean sediments to falsify geologic history

1 fossil that doesnt fit wouldnt prove nothing. You can write it off as an outlier that died out due to bad adaptibility.

>>9655145
>radiometric dating

first they used faulty carbon dating methodology now this. looks like someone is fishing for results.

>>9655360
>Natural selection is a theory. Evolution is a sure thing, because we can see it happen.

you can see natural selection happen, but not evolution. do you even understand the difference?

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme."

Popper

Evolution has already been debunked by /pol/

Fact is that evolution has failed every single test we've thrown at it, and every time it fails a test we slap some bandaids on it and persevere with it. The only reason we do this is because it's the only hypothesis naturalists have and if they had to admit that evolution simply doesn't match what we know about how changes occur in DNA then they'd have to give ground to creationists.

>>9656067
BASED AND SAVED
science today is a big meme

>>9656067
Eh, doesn't look like anything there debunked Evolution, just the predictions that scientists were making.

>>9656105
>just the predictions

yeah man, science isnt actually about correct predictions. its about theories that are true but that dont predict anything and you cant actually test them.

>>9656109
They're trying to predict past things, and a lot of those would be reliant on what sort of evolutionary pressures would be active at the time. Most of them are just predictions based on what seems the most logical.

The main exception there is that fossil record bullshit.
Acting like we expect to find a step by step fossil record is pretty retarded. Fossils are pretty rare, the conditions that lead to making them fairly uncommon and we have to discover them even if they do exist.

Also, there are no sources for all of that. I'd like to know where he got all his information to make that list.

>>9656122
>They're trying to predict past things

yep, its mythology.
science is forward thinking, mythology is backwards.

>>9654743
Maybe you wanted to say that it's not verifiable instead of not falsifiable?

>>9656133
>verifiable instead of not falsifiable

no, I meant what I said. In scientific method, you verify smth by trying to falsify it.

>>9656123
Eh, it's a bit better than mythology because they're looking for evidence to prove or disprove their theories instead of just writing up what they think happened and leaving it at that.

>>9655989
earth Is flat they are just using faulty methodology to show us its round. it looks like they are fishing for results

>>9656159
>earth Is flat they are just using faulty methodology to show us its round.

earth being triangle shaped isnt falsifiable?

>>9655989
>first they used faulty carbon dating methodology now this. looks like someone is fishing for results.
Carbon dating only works for about 75,000 years. Radiometric dating is pretty much the same principle but using materials with longer half lives, like uranium. It's not as accurate as carbon dating, but it actually works over billions of years.
One of the problems with religious faggots is that they don't know the difference and they conflate the two, point out the problems with carbon dating over extremely long periods and then claim that this date is from a flawed method.

>>9656167
in theory it is falsifiable but we can never know since all evidence is part of some jewish conspiracy.

>>9656067
>evolution goes at a different speed than predicted
>consequently there's no evolution
Nice try, nigger.

>>9656169
>One of the problems with religious faggots is that they don't know the difference and they conflate the two, point out the problems with carbon dating over extremely long periods and then claim that this date is from a flawed method.

that is because fedora tippers who take it in the ass like yourself used it for making 4.5 billion as the estimate for Earth age dating. Who even knows what historical conditions might slow or fasten radiometric decay but who even cares if we can prove what we want.

>>9656172
>in theory it is falsifiable but we can never know

you CAN know if its falsifiable, just buy a plane and make a trip around the Earth.

>>9656067
>Evolution has already been debunked by /pol/

>>9656182
but from plane earth looks FLAT, I have done this personally

>>9656140
If a theory is not falsified, it doesn't mean it's true, e.g. newtonian dynamics wasn't falsified until 20th century, it's doesn't mean it was verified before that.

>>9656184
>looks FLAT

giraffes neck looked elongated to Lamarck. make a round trip around the Earth.

>>9656186
>If a theory is not falsified, it doesn't mean it's true

its about POSSIBILITY of falcification. Newtons physics always had that possibility.

>>9656182
>Who even knows what historical conditions might slow or fasten radiometric decay
You actually what mate?

>>9654769
>in what fallactical logical universe?
This one. That is the textbook definition of evolution. There is no other definition. If you think evolution is anything but that, you are wrong. Full stop.

>>9655034
Macroevolution relies on microevolution. If you falsify microevolution, it also falsifies macroevolution.

>>9656204
you cant just jump from WITHIN SPECIES natural selection to CROSS SPECIES evolution.

>>9656212
>Macroevolution relies on microevolution

microevolution is a meme semantically dishonest term - its called natural selection.
natural selection is observable and falsifiable, "macroevolution" is neither.

>>9656217
>its called natural selection
Not really, mutations and inheritance are required for microevolution too. You can falsify any one of them to falsify macroevolution, like: macroevolution relies on natural selection, if you falsify natural selection, it also falsifies macroevolution.

>>9656217
You can if you actually understand how speciation works. Look up the various reasons why species ate biologically incompatible; all of them are the result of fundamental biological processes, all of which are subject to evolution.

>>9656226
>macroevolution relies on natural selection, if you falsify natural selection, it also falsifies macroevolution.

you seem totally uneducated on basic logics if you think that.
natural selection and mutation is a NECESSERY but not SUFFICIENT proof for evolution so you skipped a few premises.

for the stupid people:

e.g. "John is a bachelor", it is necessary that it be also true that he is
1) unmarried,
2 )male,
3) adult

if you have all 3 you have SUFFICIENT proof. but it doenst go the other way ie. if you know an unmmarried person, that doesnt mean he is a bachleor (he might be divorced or a kid)

e.g. II "Evolution exists" it is necessary that it be also true that
1) natural selection/microevolution
2) 4.5 billion of years Earth age
3) CROSS SPECIES mutation/macroevolution

so just having microevolution isnt SUFFICIENT proof.

>>9656239
Natural selection is not actually necessary for evolution. You can have evolution with no natural selection at all. Natural selection is one of several independent mechanisms that allow evolution to occur.

>>9655989
>Who even knows what historical conditions might slow or fasten radiometric decay
Is this what religion does to your brain?

>>9656245
>during the billions of years, athmospheric pressure was constant we know its true because SCIENCE agrees!

>>9656246
You don't understand radioactive decay, do you?

>>9656246
Atmospheric pressure has no effect on radioactive decay rates.

>>9656255
>>9656268
>radioactive decay rates

its completely constant regardless of any environmental conditions so you can date 4.5. billions years based on current conditions?

>>9656270
The decay is constant. You can sometimes have error introduced by the removal of particles from the sample due to outside conditions, but the decay rate will stay the same. If you choose your sample carefully you can nearly eliminate error from particle loss.

Also, multiple different avenues of research have turned up the ~4.5 billion year figure. If there was a systemic error with one method, others would show a discrepancy.

>>9656270
Oh good, you're starting to learn.

>>9656295
>You can sometimes have error introduced by the removal of particles from the sample due to outside conditions

stuff like sun radiation, atmospheric pressure, earths position in galaxy probably changed together with a lot of other dramatic changes during billions of years.

4.5 billion is a pretty big time gap, one would agree that you need some form of control of those factors before you jump to conclussions about a (what seems to be a) constant rate of radioctive decay wee see today?

>>9656307
Radioactive decay has been very, very extensively studied by modern physics. There is no rational basis for expecting those factors to change radioactive decay rates.

>>9656329
>There is no rational basis for expecting those factors to change radioactive decay rates.

but you still should be CONSERVATIVE in scientific claims especially jumping from lab conditions to external, taking current lab conditions and applying them to mtfck oexternal 4.5 billion years before is a pretty jumpy conslusion.

>>9656339
It's not. The whole POINT of lab conditions is that we can experimentally manipulate the system and find out which factors are the biggest control knobs on a system. And again, as I said: multiple independent lines of inquiry turn up similar values.

>>9656067
>Evolution has already been debunked by /pol/

>>9656345
>The whole POINT of lab conditions is that we can experimentally manipulate the system

correct, but everyone who knows methodology 101 knows how complex is to extrapolate lab findings. But you ditch that in the bin when dating Earth for some reason.

>>9656350
Difficulties in extrapolation come when the system varies in a parameter that affects the phenomenon. We have a very good idea of the factors that affect this phenomonon and how they varied during geological time.

And you still seem to be ignoring the second point, that multiple independent analyzes produce the same figure. If there were, as you claim, external factors affecting radioactive decay, they would not affect all radionuclides the same way. We would see large discrepancies between analyses. We do not.

>>9656412
why do they rate the age of the meteorites to the same age as the Earth? Shouldnt they be older or younger if the come from a different planet?

>>9656430
They don't rate the meteorites as exactly the same age as the planet. They use meteorites to provide boundaries for the time period. The planets and many meteors are hypothesized to have been formed from the same starting material, so by examining the age of the meteorites we can infer out that earth may have been formed at some point after those meteorites were formed

>>9656067
Do you even know what evolution even is?
Do you know scientists have directly observed evolution on birds,lizards, fish and countless other animals?
Are you retarded?

>>9656496
>Do you know scientists have directly observed evolution on birds,lizards, fish and countless other animals?

liar. they observed natural selection and you deliberatly jump to conclusion and lie.>>9656239

>>9656503
see: >>9656244

>>9656539
I understand that you could have evolution without natural selection, but natural selection is proved numerous time by observation in all kinds of species.

>>9656541
Just because natural selection has been observed frequently does not mean that all evolution is the result of natural selection. The poster in >>9656503 is getting the logic backwards. What was observed was evolution, and in many but not all cases natural selection was the mechanism by which evolution occurred.

>>9654660
The only people who say that evolution has a problem with falsifiability are those who know nothing about the theory. Stop shitting up the board with retarded garbage, you retard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPIUjDvU0oM

>>9656556
>The only people who say that evolution has a problem with falsifiability are those who know nothing about the theory.

enlighten a biggoted peasant then.

>>9656548
>What was observed was evolution, and in many but not all cases natural selection was the mechanism by which evolution occurred.

this is just semantic games, you observe natural selection and you wrongly extrapolate it to evolution.

>>9654684
>>9656062
>>9656109

>(((Popper)))
>Feyerabend

Fuck off. This is a naturalist/pro-science board.

>>9656568
both Popper and Feyerabend were pro scientific method and called out anti-naturalist mythology like evolution.

>>9656563
It's not semantic games at all. You're just wrong about this. All that researchers can observe is evolution. Distinguishing natural selection from genetic drift from sexual selection and other mechanisms comes after evolution has been observed.

>>9656123
>>They're trying to predict past things

As we discover more fossils, they will continue to demonstrate, and to further fill in, the general tree of life as it evolved over time. They will not show that species remained static over time. We will not find Triassic Humans, eg.

Ths is not a prediction of the past, it is a prediction of what future discoveries will conform to. It's panned out so far. If new discoveries suddenly refute it, then we'll have to rethink some things.

>>9656123
>science is forward thinking, mythology is backwards.

So your stance is that it is impossible to study the past scientifically? That seems silly.

>>9656610
>So your stance is that it is impossible to study the past scientifically?

nope, archeological findings like Troy were based on scientific method. A very different thing than having facts and creating myths.

>>9656574
You don't even know what naturalism is. Read Quine, Bunge and other pro-science philosophers and stop reading this pop philosophy crap.

>>9656677
You don't even know what science is. Read Popper, Feyerabend and other pro-science philosophers and stop reading this pop philosophy crap.

>>9656691
putting popper and feyerabendin the same sentence is quite possible the stupidest thing i've read all week

>>9656691
Retard.

>>9656714
Fayerabend rejected falsifiabiltiy requirement?

>>9654684
>>9656062
>>9656109
Kys

>>9656728
feyerabend wrote a whole book making the case that the scientific method is fundamentally flawed

>>9656755
>feyerabend wrote a whole book making the case that the scientific method is fundamentally flawed

DUH >>9654684
that is why falsifiabiltiy is so important.

>>9656737
pleb is you go watch a Ted talk or smth.

>>9656763
you don't get it. popper argued for falsifiability. feyerabend argued falsifiability was an illusory goal. they're not compatible with each other.

>>9656755
Could you give a condensed version of why he thought that? And what, if anything, he proposed to put in its place.

>>9656817
>feyerabend argued falsifiability was an illusory goal.

wait a sec, feyerband thought that a scientific theory can be irrefutable? he was OK with that?

>>9656831
>He emphasised that older scientific theories, like Aristotle's theory of motion, had powerful empirical and argumentative support, and stressed, correlatively, that the heroes of the scientific revolution, such as Galileo, were not as scrupulous as they were sometimes represented to be. He portrayed Galileo as making full use of rhetoric, propaganda, and various epistemological tricks in order to support the heliocentric position... He also sought further to downgrade the importance of empirical arguments by suggesting that aesthetic criteria, personal whims and social factors have a far more decisive role in the history of science than rationalist or empiricist historiography would indicate.
>Against Method explicitly drew the ... conclusion that there are no useful and exceptionless methodological rules governing the progress of science... The history of science is so complex that if we insist on a general methodology which will not inhibit progress the only “rule” it will contain will be the useless suggestion: “anything goes”. In particular, logical empiricist methodologies and Popper's Critical Rationalism would inhibit scientific progress by enforcing restrictive conditions on new theories.
>Feyerabend saw himself as having undermined the arguments for science's privileged position within culture... Because there is no scientific method, we can't justify science as the best way of acquiring knowledge. And the results of science don't prove its excellence, since these results have often depended on the presence of non-scientific elements
>"science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits"

>>9656903
come on man, no. that's fucking stupid. please do at least a little research into his work

>>9656925
>come on man, no. that's fucking stupid. please do at least a little research into his work

I did, but I didnt know which part of Popper was really in conflict with Feyerabend you refferd to.
Feyerabend was more critical of Kuhn, from my understanding he wasnt that much in conflict with Poppers idea of falsification.

>>9656937
he was critical of every formulation of the scientific method, Popper's included.

feyerabend actually has MORE in agreement with kuhn than popper. kuhn's ideas of how social factors contribute to the practice of real science are very reminiscent of feyerabend's criticisms of people like popper. the difference between the two is that kuhn was describing how science normally progresses and how those factors fit in with normal science, while feyerabend was using them to make the case that scientific methods are fundamentally flawed

>>9656959
>the difference between the two is that kuhn was describing how science normally progresses and how those factors fit in with normal science, while feyerabend was using them to make the case that scientific methods are fundamentally flawed

isnt a better way of putting it, that feyerabend though that, scientific progresses is chaotic and often inspired by nonscience, more than sci community wants to admit?

But I never understood people who think Fey was some kind of new age anti-science spiritual chrystal dude. My adherence to Popper is primarily due to his systematization of the concept of falsifiability, not sure what you reffered to as Poppers sci methodology.

>>9656979
that was part of his argument, sure, but he went WAY beyond that. he very explicitly made the case that any definition of the scientific method that was more restrictive than "do whatever the fuck you want" wasn't rigorous or logically justified.

that doesn't mean he didn't think science was worthless. he says in the foreward to AM that he doesn't want people to stop doing science. his goal was more nuanced. he wanted people to realize the deep flaws in science as a tool and not act like ideas like falsifiability were an impenetrable bulwark against incorrect conclusions.

he was trying to say that scientific methodology is a broken tool that will never be fixed, and pretending otherwise was, in his mind, willful ignorance

also, popper's systematization of falsifiability is exactly what i meant

>>9657004
>but he went WAY beyond that. he very explicitly made the case that any definition of the scientific method that was more restrictive than "do whatever the fuck you want" wasn't rigorous or logically justified.

but in the end his advice of "anything goes" didnt mean we should become astrologist, but we should go with "anything" into empiricism (as opossed to Kuhns idea of going into empiricism more conservatly).

so whichever "anything" you use youll end up in empiricism and with any legitimate empiricism you cant escape boundaries of falsifiability, which I dont mean Fey wanted, so theres is Popper&Fey simbiosis I reffered to.

pls give your opinion on that.

>>9657039
ehhhhhhh. i really don't think that fits with what he wrote. i think this statement would be closer to what he argued: sometimes, empiricism and falsifiability might be the right path to advance knowledge. however, it could easily be the case that empiricism is the wrong method for solving a problem. no one approach can solve every problem

he definitely wasn't advocating an abandonment of science. when i think of his characterization of science, i think of having to grasp a sword by the blade. if you do it carefully, you won't be injured; do it wrong, and you're gravely cut

>>9657085
>sometimes, empiricism and falsifiability might be the right path to advance knowledge. however, it could easily be the case that empiricism is the wrong method for solving a problem.

heh, I think his views are basically popperian with edgy comments and more daring for controversy - like his views on primitive tribes and their "science" of medicine and meteorology, it actually is science, undeveloped science, but still empirical method.

Nowhere did it seemed to me that Fey suggested the mentioned tribes should stay on that level but that we should appreciate their knowledge.

Another example from history of medicine I might point out is the story of Ignaz Semmeleweis and germ theory in which case the "primitive" midwives tradition of 5 milleania of washing hands before giving birth to a child was more scientific than euro medicine in 19th century - my interpretation is that situation was what was Fey hinting at. But at no point do I see a conflict of Popper and Fey or that Fey suggests going outside of empiricism.

>>9657133
>But at no point do I see a conflict of Popper and Fey or that Fey suggests going outside of empiricism.

or falsifiability (doe he admits that it happens more often in science - like with evolution today)

>>9657133
I really don't think you're properly representing his arguments. Feyerabend was an critic of empiricism for all but the earliest portions of his career. to say that feyerabend thought everyone would end up at empiricism is at odds with most of his major works, which pretty emphatically made the point that no single methodology, empiricism included, was suitable for all cases

i mean, you only have to look at the analytical index for AM: the last line in the summary of chapter 15 (4e) is "Popper's critical rationalism fails for the same reasons." and his go-to example in the book is a case of someone carrying out a research program in the face of trivially-obtained contradicting empirical evidence

>>9657133
>"primitive" midwives tradition of 5 milleania of washing hands before giving birth to a child was more scientific than euro medicine in 19th century

scratch that, the "primitive" midwives tradition of 5 milleania of washing hands before giving birth to a child was actually less scientific but more factual. What is scientific is dictated but scientific establishment. So you get on what points was Fey anti-science and anti-falsifiable (lets say that in biblical exodus, midviwes wash hands with motivation to be obedient to God not for hygiene standards, so they didnt actually understand what they were doing).

like pic rel situation when infalsifiable religious beliefs were more factual than scientific establishment of the time, but you can incorporate those beliefs into science by appling scientific method on them. I think that is Feys position.

>>9657218
I sincerely disagree. nothing in what ive ever read of feyerabend leads me to believe he'd support the idea that you can take nonscientific beliefs and incorporate them into a scientific method and arrive at truth. rather, he made the argument that you can arrive at advancement in knowledge while bypassing the scientific method altogether.

>>9657229
>rather, he made the argument that you can arrive at advancement in knowledge while bypassing the scientific method altogether.

yes, that was his position, I sort of gave my twist to it and projected a bit, I still think that scientific method is pretty valuable and we should, if methodology allows, try to "scientify" those beliefs.

>>9656246
>Radioactive decay isn't random, furthermore it is dependent on athmospheric pressure, of all things
This is highschool shit, buddy. Maybe i'm too naive in my idea of american education, but this honestly can't be anything else but top-tier bait.

>>9655989
>observe natural selection and claim it was a proof of cross species evolution
R. pomonella is currently speciating before our very eyes. The apple-feeding and hawthorn-feeding populations do not interbreed (reproductive isolation) despite sharing an environment. So long as this continues, the populations represent two distinct species that just haven't been officially described yet.
Now, if by "cross species evolution" you mean a fly turning into a beetle or something, you're just an idiot, because evolution doesn't predict this to happen. New species branch off from very similar pre-existing species.

>that is natural selection/microevolution
aaand if you falsify microevolution, you've falsified macroevolution as well, because macroevolution is just a bunch of microevolution adding up. see: >>9655101
organisms changing over time is the literal definition of evolution. you seem to be confusing evolution, natural selection, and speciation.

>1 fossil that doesnt fit wouldnt prove nothing
there is no multicellular life known from the Archaean. the hypothetical Precambrian Rabbit would either imply some kind of creation ex nihilo or completely upend our knowledge of geologic history.
the question it would raise is not "why did it die out" but rather "where the hell did it come from".

>faulty carbon dating methodology
what exactly is unreliable about radiometric dating?

>you can see natural selection happen, but not evolution.
if you see natural selection in action, you are by definition seeing evolution. evolution is change over time. natural selection is a mechanism causing that change.

>>9657218
I just want to point out how fucking stupid that image is.

Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a circle: a disk, not a sphere.

Jeremiah 33:22 says that angels (not stars) are innumerable.

Job 28:25 describes winds as being measured out, not having tangible weight.

Job 38:19-20 mentions the dwelling-places of light and darkness, but says nothing about the movement of light.

2 Samuel 22:16 and Jonah 2:6 make no mention of underwater topography, merely referring to the depths of the sea.

Hebrews 11:3 does not refer to things made out of invisible elements, but rather creation of things from nothingness.

It's pretty crazy how creationists and bible-thumpers never even seem to read their own book.

And that's not even getting into the hilarious (and entirely unsourced) lies about what science of antiquity said.

OP, you like to disparage radiochronology, but you still haven't got an answer for what >>9656295 >>9656345 said.
If radiometric dating isn't reliable, why would all these different lines of evidence (different decay series, different samples) all point to the same age of ~4.5 Ga?

>>9654660
Popper himself who raised the unfalsifiable problem with Evolution changed his mind on it in a lecture he gave on the issue. Also Popper is not the be all and end all on the demarcation problem.