Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colossus' tragedy guide to predicting experimentation and experimenting prediction:
Scene#1:
1994
(Colossus + Stellar babe) => Elevator
Elevator accelerates.
"T, I feel heavy"
Colossal predictions: Cup size?
Kill-joy: Sire Isaac Newton. Acceleration due to gravity + Acceleration of the elevator, multiplied by the babe's mass (chief of the unknowns in a quadratic equation).
Outcome: Prediction gone bizarre.
Scene#2:
Physics laboratory lobby
Colossal Predictions: Colossus + babe in the same air-conditioned room. Spectrometers. Colossus <----spectral lines----> Babe
Kill-joy: Babe gets the spectrometer. Colossus gets the spring pendulum.
Outcome: Babe gets to chill. Colossus gets his bum outside, with a box of rusty weights.
Scene#3:
Spring Pendulum Apparatus
Colossal Predictions: 9.8 ms-2 ONLY
Modus Operandi:
1. Sign of the Cross
2. Open notebook, proper use of scales and pencils.
3. Prologue - recite newtons laws of motion and gravity, on paper.
4. Observe & calibrate - calculate the tensile variation of the spring pendulum
5. Observe & calibrate - calculate the zero error of the physical balance
6. Observe & calibrate - calculate the weight/error weight ratio of the rusty stones.
13. The crime of average, a distant auntie of prediction, g = 10.1 ms-2, clearly establishes the missing link, directly or indirectly
Scene#4:
Babe and the spectrometer.
Examiner to babe: Thou art the queen of prisms.
Babe smiles like VIBGYOR.
Lecherous predictions: Spectral lines are seductive. Wavelengths are curvy. 100/100
Scene#5:
Examiner to Colossus: 10.1??
Colossal predictions: I suppose the young's modulus of the material of the spring is subject to change in the twenty years since the lab last bought it, on second hand.
Examiner to Colossus: 80/100
Colossal predictions: I suppose the spring fails to satisfy Hooke's law, right now.
Examiner to Colossus: 60/100, you're off the hook.
Scene#6:
Dad: Exothermic reaction
Mom: Endothermic reaction
Moral: How weak an argument does prediction provide?!?!?!
Interesting posted interpretations. Actually, in most cases, the predictions arise out of the hypothesis, not the other way around. One doesn't predict hypotheses, C_A, it's the other way around.
As in: a means to prove an un-observable phenomenon (thx, Montana; you actually got it and win the special intelligence award...), one can then generate a list of what one would expect if the untested hypothesis were true.
If aunt Sally was murdered here, we'd expect (i.e.: PREDICT) to find blood. Hey, lookit that! here's some blood! Next, we might hope to (PREDICT) find some signs of a struggle: hey lookit that!; here's a ripped shirt that belonged to auntie. Next, if there were a murder struggle, we can PREDICT that there might have been someone who witnessed the struggle or at least heard some of it: hey lookit; our prediction for that is also met.
And on and on.
Likewise, back when Evolution was speculated as the possible explanation of the diversification of species, observant researchers said; if Evolution has taken place, what would we then see as consequential evidence?
Things like transitional forms, exhibiting certain physical & biological differences, however minute, that clearly lead from one form to another.
We might see a reasonable, consistent shift in genotype as our PREDICTED evolution took place.
We might find ever-earlier fossils at PREDICTABLY deeper depths of geo-archeology & paleontology.
In all these cases, the PREDICTED evidence, what we would find if Evolution were actually occurring, is precisely what we do find.
Such irrefutible evidence, especially when combined with evidence done by other independant researchers, in other unrelated fields, provides a very strong case for anything. Most would rationally say, frankly: an irrefutible case.
Only the desperate will argue against or actively ignore such findings and conclusions. Especially when the predictions for their version of things have not been ever found, in any form.
In real science, PREDICTION provides an accurate and unmistakable source of evidentiary proof. If something is or has happened, the consequences will be out there, only requiring an honest interpretation.
Once that part's been done, and the results are in, especially when they are multi-facetted, independant and support the original hypothesis directly & precisely, what more need be said?
QED?*
* Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which literally means "which was to be demonstrated", or "thus it has been proven".
Last edited by rifleman; 05-20-2009 at 09:18 PM..
Reason: QED
The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence.
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction.
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates (creatures with skulls). On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" New Page 1
With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.
Agreed, but you missed my point here. i'm not trying to predict the future of anyone. Perhaps you're trying too hard to read in to what point you're sure I'm trying to make.
I'm just talking about hard, empirical evidence, such as a bloodstain left at the scene of a suspected murder, followed by the discovery of some ripped clothing that was known to belong to the missing person, plus, let's say, the neighbor having heard screams in a female voice. Couple this with a missing person report, and one could possibly predict they'd been murdered, no? I mean, the hypothesis that if they had been murdered, there would certainly be some consequential results & evidence, and then we go out and look for those predicted findings. If we found them where we would expect to, what can we then conclude?
What, then, is the likelihood that our original hypothesis (that poor old aunt Sally's been murdered, for instance) is correct? Better and better? If we find blood whose DNA matches aunt Sallie's, do we then have to find the body to know for a fact that she's dead and gone?
Not really, I agree, though it's not looking good for auntie at that point. Perhaps we could start to assign probabilities of her untimely demise though, and as time goes on and she's never heard from again despite that she used to be very active in the community, and showed up every Sunday for Church, except for the last two Sundays, what then do we begin to suspect?
And then, when we finally find a chunk of her brain (yuk!!) in an icebox, can we then conclude that she's likely dead? Why?
Simple questions. No hidden meanings. Just examining the hypothesis and evidence processes and their possible logical consequences.
At what point can we predict she had been murdered? The point when all the evidence adds up to the fact, not circumstancial, that she had been murdered. We can speculate all we want until that point but that isn't prediction.
We can have all the above evidence and she could still be alive, including that little piece of brain. When we find the body is when she is actually dead. We can predict anything under the sun and moon but the fact of death will only be when she is found.
I guess if you're a really freaked out, insane murderer who gets his jolly's at the suffering of another and doesn't care what kind of pain you cause, she could be alive until he decides the fun is over.
i have always been most astonished how everyone else goes along with obviously random examples to build "conclusive" analogous understanding ... which then only needs to be boosted with mathematics (and statistics)...
imho, the so-called life sciences need to team up with the humanities to keep mankind humane!!!!
and then, i41, internationally thinking (yes: quantities!!!!) and demanding democratic values in online correspondence, need to ask:
are the contentions between christian religionists and progressive ("liberal"?) life science apologists the only philosophy in formation where the new world "order" is concerned?
sorry, i cannot possibly conform to only seeming but firmly established semantics!
Last edited by effie g-tad; 05-21-2009 at 06:38 AM..
At what point can we predict she had been murdered?
We don't. We look at the totality of the evidence, and we CONCLUDE.
The point when all the evidence adds up to the fact, not circumstancial, that she had been murdered. We can speculate all we want until that point but that isn't prediction.
You're right. You're getting your processes quite mixed up. No wonder you're likely neither a sdcientist nor a criminologist! It wouldn't work for you, I'm guessing. Carts before horses, sentences without subjects; hypotheses after predictions, conclusions before hypotheses. Sheesh!
We can have all the above evidence and she could still be alive, including that little piece of brain.
Ah yes; we saw open the brain, scoop out some random brains; it'll be all right auntie; that plus the blood loss and the life & death struggle; you'll get over it, against the findings of medical science.... anything's possible, but some are hopelessly unlikely. Like Creationism.
When we find the body is when she is actually dead. We can predict anything under the sun and moon but the fact of death will only be when she is found.
Wrong.
I guess if you're a really freaked out, insane murderer who gets his jolly's at the suffering of another and doesn't care what kind of pain you cause, she could be alive until he decides the fun is over.
Well of course, but in the end, criminologists have to move on, and when auntie is never seen again, and our DNA evidence from the bits of brain prove to be hers, and we found, say a minimum of 3 qts of blood on the floor, we can, finally, put auntie to bed in our mind, even though there's that 0.0001% chance that she's now walking the streets of Shanghai as a demented old soul. But at some point, we take the entire picture, and then come to some reasonable conclusions.
Of course, in the case of Evolution,the evidence never stops coming in, unlike the cold case for aunt Sally. We're still looking for evidence, not so much that it happened any more (unnecessary, if you've been keeping up on your scientific reading); rather we look for interesting findings that, conveniently, fit the tired but true PREDICTIONS, and just provide a bit of additional color commentary to the whole true story.
The Creationists jump on any tiny flaws, and yell, loud as they can, that "See! Evolution is a bust, a theory, and it's all flawed, based on this one slight disagreement about a tiny bit of the puzzle and exactly where it should fit. Yeah; we got 'em on the run again, boys and girls!!"
Oh go sit down, will yah? You're barking up a now dead tree.
Certainly it's a lot better bit of deduction that the totally unsupported (except by biblical fiat) case for Insta-Poof, with all it's flaws, illogic, and oh yeah, complete lack of any proof or substantiation.If Creation were, in fact, true, we'd not see nor find ANY of what we've seen and found; proof in and of itself against the mythical and vastly scientifically illiterate Creationist/Genesis stories.
I mean, just were did God & Noah hide those 40 each times 12 kinds of apatosaurs on the literal Ark after all, plus food & water and waste management? not to mention the other 200 (known) kind of dinos (not to mention the existing millions of known and still alive species)?
I mean, let's just get real for a moment here. Evolution explains it all, it all fits, the evidence continues to flow in, and you guys all run and hide, covering your eyes and ears and shouting that WE'RE biased. Love it.
Funny. Sad. And adding to our proven national reputation for scientific illiteracy and fearful knee-jerk ritualistic paganism.
You're right. I'm not a scientist nor a criminologist. It's not my line of work and you didn't present all of the evidence, only partial. No even a criminologist or scientist can predict without all of the evidence.
I'm not a creationist nor do I believe in the literal Noah's ark sweeping away pairs of creatures because of a flood.
You can stop the rampage now because you may be better at science and criminology, but you aren't better than any one person so, me not being smart at things that you are doesn't mean I need to be belittled by you and be the brunt of your rampage because I didn't answer the way you intended for me to answer.
The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence.
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction.
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates (creatures with skulls). On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" New Page 1
With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.
i will not (in part because i cannot ) argue facts and contents of the above exhortations.
as a "student", however, i would have to question methods as well, as imho they tend to lead into "logics" very separate(d) from anything unified and wholesome.
may sound farfetched, but then ... at least i am trying to get some better understanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oh oh ....
QED: Google It.
