Human Race and Earth Endangered by New Strain

[table1349]

Well, perhaps it is semantics, but scientific theories can NOT be proven. They can, however be disproven. At best, our scientific theories are statements of our current understanding, with a confidence level that can be pretty high (but never 100%), and always subject to revision once new evidence is obtained.

Perhaps the response is due to the phrase "cobbled together", which implies an ad-hoc or rather unstructured collection of mostly-unrelated facts. That may be true for an inital hypothesis, but usually by the time the science gets enough information and tests the hypothesis many different ways, the resulting assembly of knowledge can be dignified as a scientific theory, and pretty much all such theories are subject to a rather rigorous process of verification and vetting.

Of course, science being conducted by humans, there is always the possibility of error and selection blindness, and a myriad of other human failings that can influence the expression of the theory, but in general the peer-review process is reasonably good at finding the chaff among the grain.

However, this discussion does not address the issues of the original post and article, which, although written in a humorous way, still points to the propensity for humans to selectively filter out anything that does not correspond to their current point of view.

Good for the goose.....good for the gander.

Well, perhaps it is semantics, but religious doctrine can NOT be proven. They can, however be disproven. At best, our religious beliefs are statements of our current understanding, with a confidence level that can be pretty high (but never 100%), and always subject to revision once new evidence is obtained.

Perhaps the response is due to the phrase "cobbled together", which implies an ad-hoc or rather unstructured collection of mostly-unrelated facts. That may be true for an initial doctrine , but usually by the time religion gets enough information and tests the beliefs many different ways, the resulting assembly of knowledge can be dignified as a religious doctrine, and pretty much all such doctrine's are subject to a rather rigorous process of verification and vetting.

Of course, religion being conducted by humans, there is always the possibility of error and selection blindness, and a myriad of other human failings that can influence the expression of the faith, but in general the peer-review process is reasonably good at finding the chaff among the selected grain.

However, this discussion does not address the issues of the original post and article, which, although written in a humorous way, still points to the propensity for humans to selectively filter out anything that does not correspond to their current point of view.

 

[pixmedic]

^^
I don't like what I see
I press the disagree
It adds no discussion
But feels good to me

to be fair, the same thing can be said or any of the buttons.

 

[table1349]

^^
I don't like what I see
I press the disagree
It adds no discussion
But feels good to me

to be fair, the same thing can be said or any of the buttons.

It would be nice at times to be able to select multiple buttons.

 

[Designer]

It would be nice at times to be able to select multiple buttons.

Excellent idea!

With enough of the right kind of buttons, one could almost compose a complete reply using only the buttons.

 

[Derrel]

^^
I don't like what I see
I press the disagree
It adds no discussion
But feels good to me

Yeah...that's what the Disagree button is for...

 

[Fred Berg]

Well, perhaps it is semantics, but scientific theories can NOT be proven. They can, however be disproven. At best, our scientific theories are statements of our current understanding, with a confidence level that can be pretty high (but never 100%), and always subject to revision once new evidence is obtained.

Perhaps the response is due to the phrase "cobbled together", which implies an ad-hoc or rather unstructured collection of mostly-unrelated facts. That may be true for an inital hypothesis, but usually by the time the science gets enough information and tests the hypothesis many different ways, the resulting assembly of knowledge can be dignified as a scientific theory, and pretty much all such theories are subject to a rather rigorous process of verification and vetting.

Of course, science being conducted by humans, there is always the possibility of error and selection blindness, and a myriad of other human failings that can influence the expression of the theory, but in general the peer-review process is reasonably good at finding the chaff among the grain.

However, this discussion does not address the issues of the original post and article, which, although written in a humorous way, still points to the propensity for humans to selectively filter out anything that does not correspond to their current point of view.

Ironic that the discussion demonstrates this to some extent

Cobbled together was probably going too far in hindsight but no apologies for that because a very interesting discussion ensued.

 

[Buckster]

^^
I don't like what I see
I press the disagree
It adds no discussion
But feels good to me

Yeah...that's what the Disagree button is for...

Oops! I thought it was to voice the fact that I actually do disagree with what was said, but want to avoid using words that some might find offensive and possibly cause the thread to be locked and/or myself to get banned.

Like, if someone claimed that the moon really is made of green cheese and scientists who say otherwise are lying and all involved in a giant world-wide conspiracy, I think it would be better for all if I voice my opinion by hitting the disagree button, rather than to put my actual thoughts into words.

 

[Designer]

Plus, it's a lot easier.

 

[bribrius]

^^
I don't like what I see
I press the disagree
It adds no discussion
But feels good to me

Yeah...that's what the Disagree button is for...

Oops! I thought it was to voice the fact that I actually do disagree with what was said, but want to avoid using words that some might find offensive and possibly cause the thread to be locked and/or myself to get banned.

Like, if someone claimed that the moon really is made of green cheese and scientists who say otherwise are lying and all involved in a giant world-wide conspiracy, I think it would be better for all if I voice my opinion by hitting the disagree button, rather than to put my actual thoughts into words.

Maybe you should pray about it...

 

[Fred Berg]

^^
I don't like what I see
I press the disagree
It adds no discussion
But feels good to me

Yeah...that's what the Disagree button is for...

Oops! I thought it was to voice the fact that I actually do disagree with what was said, but want to avoid using words that some might find offensive and possibly cause the thread to be locked and/or myself to get banned.

Like, if someone claimed that the moon really is made of green cheese and scientists who say otherwise are lying and all involved in a giant world-wide conspiracy, I think it would be better for all if I voice my opinion by hitting the disagree button, rather than to put my actual thoughts into words.

Or because try as you might, you have been unable to steer the thread in the direction you'd like it to go: to the land of wild accusations and putting words in other people's mouths. Flaming shame when people won't rise to the bait, isn't it? Never mind, just go back to fishing for bites under your bridge.

 

[bribrius]

can imagine having to do a portrait of God. How on earth would you ever keep from blowing out the highlights....?

 

[KenC]

With enough of the right kind of buttons, one could almost compose a complete reply using only the buttons.

If this went far enough it might be the only time a language with an alphabet evolved into one using hieroglyphics.

 

[unpopular]

The idea that theories cannot be proven but can be disproved is illogical. Take for example the autism-vaccine theory. Now, I am in NO WAY saying that vaccines cause autism (and frankly, the position that kids are better off with measles than autism oughtright offends me). However, there is no way to be certain, without looking at every single case of autism, that vaccines DON'T - under the right set of circumstances, cause autism. This is the same logical principle that concludes that theories cannot be proven (see Black Swan Theory).

Just as theories are supported by evidence, theories are likewise unsupported by evidence. However, this does not positively conclude a theory is disproved - only that the probability of the affirmative is low.

So I think the better way to look at theories is in the construct that every theory is in fact two: when you say "I have a theory that vaccines cause autism" you are likewise saying that "I have a theory that vaccines don't cause autism". Through the scientific method both theories are tested with one outcome being more likely than the other. In this case, evidence supports the latter to a higher degree of certainty than the prior.

 

[table1349]

With enough of the right kind of buttons, one could almost compose a complete reply using only the buttons.

If this went far enough it might be the only time a language with an alphabet evolved into one using hieroglyphics.

Naaah.... Won't need to happen, there has already got to be a Klingon language only forum somewhere.

 

[bribrius]

aliens left us all here, but we already known this...