tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post5050687196190286756..comments2024-03-28T14:16:31.324-05:00Comments on Althouse: The 4 beards of Tom Wolfe's "Kingdom of Speech," ranked in order of the prominence of the bearded one. Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1603485861250114952016-09-04T06:37:56.999-05:002016-09-04T06:37:56.999-05:00traditionalguy said...
Hint: The Creator loves sci...traditionalguy said...<br />Hint: The Creator loves science. He is totally logical and runs a Universe with more variables that the greatest computer scientists ever use.<br /><br />And He holds it all together and never loses His sense of humor. Religions fear science because it empowers us. But the God who is arranged for us to have and enjoy discoveries using science.<br /><br />If we were to husbandmen over his creation doesn't it stand to reason we should know as much about his creation as possible?Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88534912305602056402016-09-04T06:33:25.978-05:002016-09-04T06:33:25.978-05:00AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
Which is odd ...AReasonableMan said...<br />Rusty said...<br />Which is odd because without the catholic church science as we know it wouldn't exist.<br /><br />This is gunna be news to the Greeks.<br /><br />The only reason we know that the Greeks did science is because of the church. It was the Catholic Church that sent monks all over Europe and the middle east searching for ancient Greek and Roman manuscripts. And because they didn't know what was important they gathered up everything. Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76088723553711839402016-09-03T21:30:34.507-05:002016-09-03T21:30:34.507-05:00traditionalguy: The Creator loves science. He is t...traditionalguy: <i>The Creator loves science. He is totally logical and runs a Universe with more variables that the greatest computer scientists ever use.</i><br /><br />From a Lutheran pastor's grandson, computer scientist, and avid amateur physicist who identifies closely with Leibniz and Gödel, all I can say is: amen.Paul Snivelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08176093036690144698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77343197205802928532016-09-03T20:57:57.652-05:002016-09-03T20:57:57.652-05:00Hint: The Creator loves science. He is totally log...Hint: The Creator loves science. He is totally logical and runs a Universe with more variables that the greatest computer scientists ever use.<br /><br />And He holds it all together and never loses His sense of humor. Religions fear science because it empowers us. But the God who is arranged for us to have and enjoy discoveries using science.traditionalguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05706120413005530014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28640683692143923642016-09-03T17:40:37.644-05:002016-09-03T17:40:37.644-05:00Smilin' Jack: Newton wrote more about how much...Smilin' Jack: <i>Newton wrote more about how much he hated Catholics than he did about physics.</i><br /><br />That's because physics is very simple, while hatred of Catholicism, especially for Anglicans, has much more irreducible complexity.Paul Snivelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08176093036690144698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40197094825544641082016-09-03T17:38:09.911-05:002016-09-03T17:38:09.911-05:00Fernandinande: Anyway, here's a bunch.
It'...Fernandinande: <i>Anyway, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22observed%22+%22speciation%22" rel="nofollow">here's a bunch.</a></i><br /><br />It's nice of you to pinch-hit for Gabriel.<br /><br />I like these. A lot. Very thorough in their descriptions of the various competing definitions of "species," nicely specific about what has and has not been observed. Very intellectually honest. Well done.<br /><br />Here's the thing: I see a lot about plant hybridization, almost all human-induced, and non-reproducing vs. reproducing strains, in keeping with the biological definition of "species" that even this source admits is problematic. I don't even see support for this speciation being due to <i>natural selection</i> as opposed to just mutation, and I certainly don't see support for the evolution of significant (say, to survival in an ecological niche) morphological change via this mechanism.<br /><br />Here's the other thing: <i>I actually accept speciation by natural selection</i>. I just do so on the same basis as evolutionary biologists do in practice: on faith, based on extrapolations from what we <i>do</i> have evidence for, such as these articles describe. But when people talk about the origins of humanity in terms of speciation by natural selection and hint, or even flat-out claim, that it gets in the same <i>universe</i> as Newtonian mechanics, they're full of shit, whether wittingly or unwittingly.Paul Snivelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08176093036690144698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42089893240141140032016-09-03T15:41:15.548-05:002016-09-03T15:41:15.548-05:00Which is odd because without the catholic church s...<i>Which is odd because without the catholic church science as we know it wouldn't exist.</i><br /><br />That could be true. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Dark Ages, and Newton wrote more about how much he hated Catholics than he did about physics.Smilin' Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01501763605001379362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45153652894701041922016-09-03T14:30:01.105-05:002016-09-03T14:30:01.105-05:00Rusty said...
Which is odd because without the cat...<i>Rusty said...<br />Which is odd because without the catholic church science as we know it wouldn't exist.</i><br /><br />This is gunna be news to the Greeks.<br />Beloved Commenter AReasonableManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139261862363663232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72454880827406017332016-09-03T14:13:33.331-05:002016-09-03T14:13:33.331-05:00Blogger AReasonableMan said...
"Gabriel said....Blogger AReasonableMan said...<br />"Gabriel said...<br />Creationists love to pretend that science is a religious endeavor. <br /><br />The antipathy of religion and the arts to science is understandable. For both, the center did not hold when exposed to a multicultural world. For religion there were two options, water down the dogma, as Protestant churches in Europe have done, or go the full Monty, as Islam has done. Both are strategies of failure. <br /><br />For the arts the old verities were atomized. The academy no longer controls the prevailing aesthetic, the marketplace does. And the marketplace doesn't care about classical music, high brow novels, poetry or fine art (unless it can function as a place to park money).<br /><br />Science, on the other hand, has proven vastly more robust. New ideas can be incorporated without threatening the entire structure because it is not a brittle structure to begin with."<br /><br />Which is odd because without the catholic church science as we know it wouldn't exist.Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65966872842553784642016-09-03T14:06:56.079-05:002016-09-03T14:06:56.079-05:00I've got this nagging hunch that just about al...I've got this nagging hunch that just about all human communication is to show status in a pack.<br /><br />I may be an idiot, but I'm a modest idiot, and so I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about that.<br /><br />Still, I was listening to some lecture series on primatology and the professor person characterized young apes playing as testing their strength. And I was all, like, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8SDztycKwY&t=0m53s" rel="nofollow">THAT'S IT!!1!!!!1</a>Eric the Fruit Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11003976042428037836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87038251787502303012016-09-03T13:27:06.891-05:002016-09-03T13:27:06.891-05:00Why would evolution produce language? Most animals...Why would evolution produce language? Most animals evolve communication in the form of threat displays to hold territory, entice mates, or show status in a pack. They also form "vocabularies" of sounds to cover concepts like "Oh, shit. Wolf!" and "Food over here!" and "Damn, I'm in heat!" But no other species seems to have evolved beyond communication expressing those immediate concepts imposed by the environment to the abstract conceptualization and linguistics humans have cobbled up.richard mcenroehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659450906647134430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82701687175140445972016-09-03T13:25:45.951-05:002016-09-03T13:25:45.951-05:00Then I look forward to your providing links to thr...<i>Then I look forward to your providing links to three. My bet is you'll retort that you're "not going to do my homework for me," </i><br /><br />Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not; which have fingers and type not the google search. For the wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek using google: Google is not in all his thoughts.<br /><br />Anyway, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22observed%22+%22speciation%22" rel="nofollow">here's a bunch.</a><br /><br />And <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?s=observed+speciation&searchsubmit=Find+%C2%BB" rel="nofollow">here's a bunch more.</a>Fernandinandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11253225431705407699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80068077513990820352016-09-03T10:53:31.209-05:002016-09-03T10:53:31.209-05:00Gabriel: Because Newtonian physics predicts that w...Gabriel: <i>Because Newtonian physics predicts that what is in that building need be no more than few inches across.</i><br /><br />You do realize that what is in that building is man-made specifically to perform experiments in <i>particle physics</i>, right? I mean, I assume so, you having a Ph.D. in physics and all.<br /><br /><i>It makes predictions known to be false, as my link above shows.</i><br /><br />Making some predictions that turn out to be false is not Popperian falsification. A theory falsified in the Popperian sense can't be expressed by the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, have a single term added to it, and yield the wildly successful Schrödinger's equation, or be cast in terms of a constant speed of light and Riemannian geometry of spacetime and yield Einstein's wildly successful field equations of general relativity.<br /><br /><i>"False" does not mean "useless", and "false" does not mean that it can't give answers so close to the true answer as to be worth using.</i><br /><br />"Falsification" doesn't mean "found to sometimes not be as accurate as we'd like, thus in need of generalization rather than replacement."<br /><br /><i>He did not know anything about the extremely powerful formalisms developed in the 18th and 19th centuries that extended the power of Newtonian physics and which still carry over into relativity and quantum mechanics.</i><br /><br />So it seems we both are aware of the work of Lagrange and Hamilton. Great. Then perhaps you can explain how their work shows Newton not to benefit from reformulation, but to be <i>false</i>?<br /><br /><i>The reason I say your statement is a lie is that speciation by natural selection has been observed hundreds of times in the last century... You either don't know that, or are lying about it. Because these papers are not hard to find.</i><br /><br />Good. Then I look forward to your providing links to three. My bet is you'll retort that you're "not going to do my homework for me," the standard response from those who rely on everyone already agreeing on assumptions, methodology, and interpretation of results in soft sciences.Paul Snivelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08176093036690144698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-637205187686371782016-09-03T10:30:30.246-05:002016-09-03T10:30:30.246-05:00Eric the Fruit Bat said...
I thought it was well-s...<i>Eric the Fruit Bat said...<br />I thought it was well-settled that the efficient cause of speciation is the invisible hand.</i><br /><br />Pixies have invisible hands. You can observe that by watching them.<br /><br />So pixieism and invisible-handism are not necessarily incompatible.<br /><br />More importantly, "species" is a social construct, which reminds me: the library hands out bookmarks with slogans and such encouraging sub-adults to read, and one stated that the offspring of a lion and tiger was called a "tigress". I was, of course, outraged at this warping of young minds and dutifully reported the government misinformation campaign to the librarian, who replied "At least somebody reads those things."Fernandinandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11253225431705407699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79089646287367129812016-09-03T08:55:31.100-05:002016-09-03T08:55:31.100-05:00Gabriel said...
Creationists love to pretend that ...<i>Gabriel said...<br />Creationists love to pretend that science is a religious endeavor. </i><br /><br />The antipathy of religion and the arts to science is understandable. For both, the center did not hold when exposed to a multicultural world. For religion there were two options, water down the dogma, as Protestant churches in Europe have done, or go the full Monty, as Islam has done. Both are strategies of failure. <br /><br />For the arts the old verities were atomized. The academy no longer controls the prevailing aesthetic, the marketplace does. And the marketplace doesn't care about classical music, high brow novels, poetry or fine art (unless it can function as a place to park money).<br /><br />Science, on the other hand, has proven vastly more robust. New ideas can be incorporated without threatening the entire structure because it is not a brittle structure to begin with.<br />Beloved Commenter AReasonableManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139261862363663232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78213543608172848582016-09-03T08:37:51.727-05:002016-09-03T08:37:51.727-05:00Hey Gabriel, were you joking about there being a w...Hey Gabriel, were you joking about there being a wall on Mexico's southern border?Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00117933390338651739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50116809005007615822016-09-03T08:02:30.924-05:002016-09-03T08:02:30.924-05:00@Paul Snively: The reason I say your statement is ...@Paul Snively: The reason I say your statement is a lie is that speciation by natural selection has been observed hundreds of times in the last century. That's quite leaving aside all the fossil evidence.<br /><br />You either don't know that, or are lying about it. Because these papers are not hard to find.Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188485747371986575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14463662141911192432016-09-03T07:56:33.956-05:002016-09-03T07:56:33.956-05:00@traditionalguy:Darwin spoke. All must bow.
Chom...@traditionalguy:<i>Darwin spoke. All must bow. <br /><br />Chomsky spoke. All must bow.</i><br /><br />Creationists love to pretend that science is a religious endeavor. But it isn't. Darwin's theory, as Darwin expounded it, was overturned by scientists, not by creationists, well over a century ago. Hundreds of papers challenge Chomsky.<br /><br />You are a creationist, and you do reason this way that your source spoke and all must bow (see Romans 14:11), but scientists do not.Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188485747371986575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76477563104134818182016-09-03T07:53:52.559-05:002016-09-03T07:53:52.559-05:00@Paul Snively:Covered by "everything you see ...@Paul Snively:<i>Covered by "everything you see on earth."</i><br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=als+lbnl+images&tbm=isch&imgil=PFZ-gBTaz66YoM%253A%253BqjQS2xalRrzp9M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.kinematics.com%25252Fabout%25252Fnewsletterarticlealsatberkeley.php&source=iu&pf=m&fir=PFZ-gBTaz66YoM%253A%252CqjQS2xalRrzp9M%252C_&usg=__8ztDRHf5pkPjGLXZA0NvPoduv84%3D&biw=1335&bih=706&ved=0ahUKEwjlo6ePnfPOAhWP0YMKHZyyDVYQyjcIKQ&ei=4cXKV6WvFY-jjwSc5bawBQ#imgrc=PFZ-gBTaz66YoM%3A" rel="nofollow">Can you see this building?</a><br /><br />Because Newtonian physics predicts that what is in that building need be no more than few inches across.<br /><br /><i>Newtonian physics hasn't been falsified. Falsification has a logically universal quality: you can't use a falsified theory anymore</i><br /><br />A) It makes predictions known to be false, as my link above shows.<br />B) Every scientific theory probably makes some false prediction about SOMETHING, and if one of them ever is true about everything ever, no one will be able to prove it. C) "False" does not mean "useless", and "false" does not mean that it can't give answers so close to the true answer as to be worth using. You don't refuse to use flat maps and only use a globe, do you? As you mentioned, Newtonian physics is quite accurate for most everyday purposes. So was Aristotle's physics and so was that of the Scholastics. Newtonian physics is a very fine scientific theory, nonetheless there are testable predictions it makes that are shown false.<br />D) Newtownian physics is not due entirely to Newton. Newton did not know about energy. He did not know why momentum is conserved. He did not know anything about the extremely powerful formalisms developed in the 18th and 19th centuries that extended the power of Newtonian physics and which still carry over into relativity and quantum mechanics.<br /><br /><i>Speciation by evolution by natural selection, which is.</i><br /><br />This is simply a lie.Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188485747371986575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35846909538896485042016-09-03T07:03:22.808-05:002016-09-03T07:03:22.808-05:00Darwin spoke. All must bow.
Chomsky spoke. All m...Darwin spoke. All must bow. <br /><br />Chomsky spoke. All must bow.<br /><br />Now isn't that easier than science. We all need authority in our life.traditionalguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05706120413005530014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43278393536281133722016-09-03T06:34:30.320-05:002016-09-03T06:34:30.320-05:00I thought it was well-settled that the efficient c...I thought it was well-settled that the efficient cause of speciation is the invisible hand.Eric the Fruit Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11003976042428037836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40165266878325475752016-09-03T06:19:27.892-05:002016-09-03T06:19:27.892-05:00Levi Starks said...
I think that in reality he'...<i>Levi Starks said...<br />I think that in reality he's putting it in its place.</i><br /><br />What place would that be, exactly?<br />Beloved Commenter AReasonableManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14139261862363663232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38087837730642361832016-09-02T23:59:21.379-05:002016-09-02T23:59:21.379-05:00I'm about 1/2 way through the book. It's e...I'm about 1/2 way through the book. It's entertaining.<br />I've learned a lot. If I were a defensive evolutionist I might get the feeling he's putting evolution down. I think that in reality he's putting it in its place. Levi Starkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05608821881587804877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89651339442869698762016-09-02T22:24:50.070-05:002016-09-02T22:24:50.070-05:00Beards. I'm happy to help.Beards. I'm happy to help.Friedrich Engels' Barberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12386776089916424843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39640382816395591722016-09-02T22:17:48.567-05:002016-09-02T22:17:48.567-05:00AReasonableMan: One key concept of evolution - all...AReasonableMan: <i>One key concept of evolution - all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool - has recently received massive experimental support from genome sequencing. This concept was falsifiable and has now been massively and stringently tested.</i><br /><br />I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with speciation by natural selection. I know of no one suggesting we don't have a common genetic ancestor, although I did have to roll my eyes a bit when some of the OJ Simpson jurors rejected DNA evidence because the denominator in an expression of odds was larger than the human population, not understanding that DNA codes for all life, past and present, not just currently-alive humans.<br /><br /><i>Unlike Newtonian physics, evolution theory has yet to be falsified under any circumstances.</i><br /><br />This is the sticking point for me. Newtonian physics hasn't been falsified. Falsification has a logically universal quality: you can't use a falsified theory anymore. I have my issues with Popper, but on this point he was very careful in constructing his reaction to the verificationism of Logical Positivism (something "One key concept of evolution - all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool - has recently received massive experimental support from genome sequencing" suffers from, strictly speaking, but space forbids a detailed discussion of deduction, induction, and probability, and anyway, I don't think such a treatment would damage your point). Fernandinande's description of the status of Newton is spot on.<br /><br /><i>This doesn't mean it can't or won't be, but it has survived some remarkably stringent and unforeseeable tests.</i><br /><br />Mendelian genetics certainly has. My complaint is precisely about the attempt to smuggle support for speciation by natural selection under that umbrella.Paul Snivelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08176093036690144698noreply@blogger.com