Ben Stein's 'Expelled'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
i’m trying to avoid being personal here, because this is the internet, so i’ll word it like this.

In high school, people are taught this nice little fairy tale about science. the fair tale goes like this. “Science is the empirical study of the world around us. it is based around the scientific method, which has (insert some random number here) steps to it. the key is though that science works by observing and measuring phenomena. to help explain these phenomena, scientists come up with hypothesis, which eventually turn into theories. if the theory holds against repeated observation, after a long time it becomes a law. bla bla bla”

all of this, after the line about “science is the empirical study of the world” is horse shit. generally, observation does not play a validating role in science. rather, generally it is falsification that is important (and yes, there’s quite the technical difference). theories are generally validated on their theoretical merit alone–ie, take Einstein’s relativity theory. it is of course seen as a plus if the theory makes predictions, but that is often a minor point. theories though of course are falsified all the time by contradictory results.

often though even contradictory results will not falsify a strong theory, as ad hoc amendments generally can fix any discrepancies. if you do not believe me, go study the history of science (the real history, not the fairy-tales in the text books).

further, this stuff about “scientific method” is bullshit. just what the “scientific method” is is a matter of debate. surely the text book writers don’t go around polling real working scientists to see what methods they use-and likewise working scientists surely don’t have some scientific method poster on their wall that they follow…
[/quote]

Yeah, I get it.

The problem with your argument is that you have now opened the door for theories like ID.

Evolution does follow the scientific method. While it’s not at all practical, it is theoretically possible to test it.

You must not be too familiar with the purest of sciences, math, are you?

A theory is just that, a theory. That is not an insult or derogatory, but it does mean that it has not been proven true or false. Therefore, it should not be regarded as fact, and there should be just as much work going on trying to show why the theory is false as there is showing why the theory is true. This is how advancement is made, not when everybody abides by the same theory without objectivity.

I don’t remember commenting on having trouble understanding. It is simply the lack of structure that is your problem.

62

[quote]tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
When you only have one viable scientific theory (one theory total actually), it’s usually OK to pretend it’s fact until contradicting evidence arises.

Does it threaten you, at all, that we have so much confidence in evolution?

“Just a theory” is a misnomer, by the way. The only other thing it could be is a law, and there are only a scarce few of those (relatively).

(Yes, that was a terrible pun. Couldn’t help myself.)

No, it’s not ok to treat it as fact. It is ok to make assumptions while doing further research, but they must remain as assumptions. Treating something such as this as fact closes the book on other possible theories, leading to close-mindedness and a lack of objectivity.[/quote]

I think we’re arguing two different things.

I’m arguing that it should presented as the only theory in high school Biology and Bio 101, because those classes don’t make a jack of sense without evolution.

As well, in science, when a theory fits with a bunch of stuff that HAS been empirically proven, that is usually a good sign…

Edit: WTF is a “jack of sense?”

63

I once kicked a kangroo in the head. That statement is about useless as this topic bc people will not change there minds about there beliefs over a online topic.
but how ever i do like reading about different point of views.
the microwave and alumin foil proves someone is out there watching

64

[quote]tedro wrote:
Yeah, I get it.

The problem with your argument is that you have now opened the door for theories like ID.

Evolution does follow the scientific method. While it’s not at all practical, it is theoretically possible to test it.
[/quote]

of course i’ve “opened the door” for theories like ID. i’ve said a few times now that ID would be a respectable theory if it was able to rigorously define its terms and gave an axiomatic mathematical model. duh.

again, you clearly don’t “get it” because your still talking this “scientific method” and “verification” garbage.

here’s a further question for you. if you can coherently answer it, i’ll admit defeat: just what sort of observations WOULD verify either ID or evolution. i know your going to say something about “the theories making predictions that observation confirms, bla bla bla” but this is not sufficient. both “theories” already are confirmed by various bits of observation.

here’s a broader question for you, since you seem to like this “fact” and “proving” stuff so much. just when is ANY theory sufficiently verified to be “proven” and accepted as “fact”?

oh, i am quite familiar with math. mathematical logic is my concentration. i am in fact quite familiar with metamathematics and metatheoretical issues in general.

i hope you are not implying that math is a counterexample of a “science” which still is full of “laws” and “proven” theories. if so, it is you who are not familiar with math–especially its history. i’ll summarize for you.

the biggest blunder of math was perhaps geometry. for about 2000 years geometers thought they had their science down, until some pesky guys like hilbert came along and turned geometry on its head. now only a fool would assert that geometry establishes “laws” of any sort. its purely a matter of constructing totally arbitrary formal systems. getting a system that works is all that matters. all that can really be “proven” is that given a set of assumed axioms and a set of rules of inference and definitions, certain results obtain. of course, the entire basis of the enterprise is arbitrary.

if you don’t like geometry, how about calculus? the basis of calculus–the notion of an infinitesimal–was around for over 200 years before mathematicians, quite arbitrarily, decided it wasn’t rigorous enough and finally worked out a rigorous definition of a limit which replaced the role of the infinitesimal.

the development of mathematical logic is another good example. the “basis” of math has been argued over for centuries, and in the last hundred years alone has been turned over several times. poor frege thought he had it all worked out, only to be shown inconsistent by russell, who himself was only shown inconsistent. the peano axioms still seem to be our best hope of truely formalizing mathematics, but even they have their issues–thank mr. godel for that one. (hello incompleteness theorem)

the development of number theory is another good example, but i leave that alone.

besides these bigger examples, professional mathematics is filled with smaller proofs that have been shown invalid years later. there are many results in mathematics that were thought “proven” only to be shown invalid later.

my point is, math, while better then the other sciences, still makes no claims about establishing “laws”. sure, formal proofs are given, and it is clearly easier to make objective advances in math then physics or chemistry, but the idea of discovering absolute truth or some shit in mathematics is just as silly as it is in physics. the history and development of math shows that time and time again, mathematicians thought they have achieved “absolute truth”, had laws, etc… only to shown totally incoherent by the next batch of mathematicians.

last point… the foundations of math itself are still in question. just what is a number? there is no widely agreed upon answer. after frege’s failure, people are slow to answer this one. of course, we have rigorous formal definitions of things like “real number”, but even these definitions still are only coherent in an already established system of mathematics that ultimately relies on intuition because we lack a formal definition of number.

65

perhaps if you had the formal background in philosophy of science and logic the lack of structure would not matter. it is hard to give well structured summarizes of entire fields. having a basic understanding of the results of the last 100 years of metatheory would help.

66

stokedporcupine,

your posts are a pleasure to read, and seldom encountered breeze of sanity and clarity of thought.

Makkun

67

A ‘scientific theory’ which, if proven would have only one outcome - the attribution of observed phenomnen to an incomprehensible source.

That is, it would not give an answer to a question. It would prove nothing. It would contribute no knowledge.

This is a defect in logic and reasoning and would not be science.

But then again, that’s religion all over isn’t?

Questions are responded with ‘answers’ which impart no actual knowledge or understanding of the problem. At best the ‘answers’ given provide a set of rules thought up by idiots which in a narrow view of the world might aid someone to lead a happy life albeit a false one.

To end on a high note I retract my previous opinion on gun ownership laws and wish to arm myself to the teeth and storm the vatican.

Whose with me? Zap?

68

[quote]makkun wrote:
stokedporcupine,

your posts are a pleasure to read, and seldom encountered breeze of sanity and clarity of thought.

Makkun[/quote]

thanks,

i normally stay out of internet debates, because as pointed out, they generally go no where.

sometimes though its fun to practice the old dialectical skills.

69

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn’t Want You to Know … about intelligent design and evolution
By John Rennie and Steve Mirsky

Main points of this excellent Scientific American article:

  1. Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
  2. Ben Stein’s speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
  3. Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
  4. The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
  5. Science does not reject religious or “design-based” explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
  6. Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

The film got quite some coverage on SCIAM - because of its inaccuracies (falsifications), and its ideological tilt:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed–Scientific American’s Take
John Rennie, Michael Shermer and Steve Mirsky all watched Ben Stein’s new antievolution movie. Here’s what they had to say about its design flaws.

Just can’t resist. Sorry.

Makkun

70

[quote]tedro wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

God and evolution are not mutually incompatible.

That sums it up.

Of course they aren’t. God is (supposedly) everything, he CAN’T be incompatible with something that exists.

However, evolution and the dogma of almost every religion ARE mutually incompatible, hence the conflict.

The Catholic Church believes in evolution. I have yet to see anything in the Bible that counteracts it. God took six “days” to create the universe in a stepwise manner.

Evolution and even the Big Bang Theory are not at all incompatible with the Bible. It is only people making interpretations that seem to have a problem with it.

Nobody seems to remember that the Big Bang Theory was actually devised by a Catholic Priest.

I think the biggest problem with this debate is that everyone claims to be right, but nobody can back either side with sound proof.

The smartest thing that can be said about this are three little words that man is all too self-centered to utter.

I don’t know.
[/quote]

That’s bull! Don’t you know Chuck Norris created the big bang while doing a roundhouse kick?!

There is no such thing as evolution. There is only a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.

71

Well this thread is a monument to stupidity.

I want to say something to people who smugly report that “the theory of evolution is just that, a theory”:
Everything is a theory. When we have a unified field theory that predicts everything it can predict to 100% accuracy, the theories we know today will cease being mere theories, it will either be part of the unified theory, or it will be just plain old incorrect. Intelligent people are able to understand that these complex models of our universe simply represent the best we can do in science at the moment.

If we do not accept that, and say instead, “since we can’t explain everything, we can explain nothing”, then all we have left over is magic. Fucking magic. The car you drive, the microwave you use to heat your tv dinners before you sit in front of the television is all run by magic. or god, take your pick.

72

As somebody who has studied biology at an advanced level this thread makes me want to vomit.