Answering some questions on evolution - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, God, Universe, Science, Spirituality, Faith, Evidence - Page 10 - City-Data Forum

Gplex · 09-30-2009, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Incredible. You clearly do not understand the scientific method. It is USED to determine HOW things work by failing to disprove how they work . . . therefore supporting how they DO work.. I fear I am wasting my time trying to explain this.

Bottom line you cannot prove a negative . . i.e. that something does NOT exist. Disproving something that is claimed to be TRUE is NOT proving a negative. It is disproving a positive claim.Duh. Those things we can't disprove we accept as facts . . . until someone does disprove them,.

Stricktly speaking, the scientific method isn't involved with p>.05 (or whatever you want to place it at.) If that's what you are getting at, you aren't doing it in an artful way.

At any rate, I am forced to prove negatives all the time, in court. For example, when I used to be in private practice, I proved that my client was not the father of a child born out of wedlock, now in prosecution I've proved that a women didn't give her consent to have sex. I've proved a person didn't pay taxes, etc.

So I think it's too broad as to say "you can not prove a negative". Which only matters because even if you do know what you are saying, others will not, and they repreat it like a mantra.

In everyday life in the real world, we prove negatives all the time.

What he or she said. But science is always about the real world.

MysticPhD · 09-30-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Stricktly speaking, the scientific method isn't involved with p>.05 (or whatever you want to place it at.) If that's what you are getting at, you aren't doing it in an artful way.

My presumptions about how widely known is the statistical component in the scientific method combined with my tiredness last night (this morning) certainly made my responses less artful. I am afraid yours however, will only serve to confirm and confuse Gplex in his misunderstanding and ignorance of the scientific method . . . but even though I am rested . . . I am not inclined to lecture someone on it. C'est la vie.

MysticPhD · 09-30-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gplex

What he or she said. But science is always about the real world.

QED, Boxcar.

Gplex · 09-30-2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

My presumptions about how widely known is the statistical component in the scientific method combined with my tiredness last night (this morning) certainly made my responses less artful. I am afraid yours however, will only serve to confirm and confuse Gplex in his misunderstanding and ignorance of the scientific method . . . but even though I am rested . . . I am not inclined to lecture someone on it. C'est la vie.

You clearly have no experience with actually communicating with other people.
My original post said "you can disprove somethings".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gplex

You can disprove somethings.

Then you start rambling on about the scientific method.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Science is all about DISproving (technically "failing to support") . . . but NOT proving negatives.

Then I try to tell you over and over and over that what you are rambling about has nothing too do with what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gplex

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gplex

nothing you said has anything to do with my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gplex

I said "you can disprove somethings".
Then you tell me about the scientific method

How about you actually reply to what I said, and not what you think I said.

Danbo1957 · 10-01-2009, 02:45 PM

"Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found"

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy - broken link)

Chango · 10-01-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

"Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found"

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy - broken link)

NO! It's a hoax perpetrated by foolish belivers in the lie of evolution in an attempt by the devil to lead Christians away from the truth!!!!! Honest!!! I've studed it for 125 years and I know it's false!!! It all happened in 6 glorious fluffy days and by all accounts Eve looked pretty damn hot riding naked on the back of a T-rex on the 8th ...

I swore I wouldn't get involved with another retarded thread like this...but here I am. Can I borrow some Ibuprofen, my head hurts

Arcane · 10-01-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

"Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found"

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy - broken link)

Goal-posts moving in 3...2...

AxisMundi · 10-02-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane

Goal-posts moving in 3...2...

The goal posts may have been moved back, but the field remains the same.

rifleman · 10-03-2009, 01:16 PM

Come now, gentlemen and ladies of the truth; let's give 'em some slack here. After all, you will remember the old ethical law of the seas?

You know; the Captain has to go down with "the ship". Even if there's an available life-raft. To prove he is... was.... wanted to.... Hey; what did it prove in the end anyhow? That he was intransigent or stubborn? In any case, he'll still be gone!

We'll have an appropriate ceremony after the last bubble breaks the surface...