ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags evolution , charles darwin

Reply
Old 26th April 2005, 03:10 AM   #41
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by Phaycops
A) This is not true.
. I cannot argue with that. We may both be right. It is a matter of opinion and definition of a concrete proof.
I would say a concrete proof would be something irrefutable. Not just evidence.

Did Darwin invented any experiment to proof the “Theory of evolution” ?
As far as I know the answer is “No”.

Does he possess many evidence? I would say “yes”, based on the species, observed and recorded by him. But how many factual evidence are needed to be a “concrete irrefutable proof” .

How many Green frogs do you need to observe ? In order to be sufficiently satisfied that “Frog is Green” is true?

Quote:
Originally posted by Phaycops
B) You're still making the mistake of thinking that scientists "believe" in theories the same way that other people "believe" in gods. While it is convenient to use the word "believe," it does not, in the context of "believing in a theory" mean the same thing. It's just quicker to say "believe" rather than "based on the balance of evidence, I conclude for now that the aforementioned theory adequately explains the observed phenomena, and therefore can be considered provisionally true, barring new evidence that may render the whole thing obsolete." [/b]
This is your own imagination. I have no disagreement about the way scientists ought to think.

I think you are making the mistake to think that scientists ALL think in the same fashion as described by you. The frequent complain against some scientists who accept new theories blindly is evidence enough.

I bet we can find scientists who specialize in non-physic field (say botany) expressing believe in the theory of relativity. They may be open minded about the theory being provisional. But what gives them the right to believe that it is true?

How many scientists can you cite, who expressly profess to believe in the “theory of relativity”

I have no intend to think that scientist “believe” in theories in the same way as people “believe” in gods.
I did not mentioned anything religious in my first post.

To believe in something blindly is not confined to creationist or the religious people. Alchemist, some of whom are scientists do believe they can create gold.

Quote:
Originally posted by Phaycops
ETA: Also, it does not appear that Darwin even said the thing you're basing your argument on! [/b]
This is true but see my reply to Darat's post.
I'm NOT anti-evolution.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2005, 05:32 AM   #42
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
. I cannot argue with that. We may both be right. It is a matter of opinion and definition of a concrete proof.
I would say a concrete proof would be something irrefutable. Not just evidence.

Did Darwin invented any experiment to proof the “Theory of evolution” ?
As far as I know the answer is “No”.
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" contained a theory by which Darwin tried to explain his observations (his experiment if you prefer). It was presented as a theory in order that others could consider it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
Does he possess many evidence? I would say “yes”, based on the species, observed and recorded by him. But how many factual evidence are needed to be a “concrete irrefutable proof” .

How many Green frogs do you need to observe ? In order to be sufficiently satisfied that “Frog is Green” is true?
I don't think anyone claims that there is irrefutable proof that evolution is the only way in which differences can occur. In view of the fossil evidence and experience with species in which evolution has been observed, evolution just fits the bill better than other evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
I think you are making the mistake to think that scientists ALL think in the same fashion as described by you. The frequent complain against some scientists who accept new theories blindly is evidence enough.
I'm not sure that they do accept new theories blindly, quite the contrary, one of the problems is that many scientists refuse to accept new thoeries and cling blindly to the old theories (based presumably on the collective intelligence of their peers having validated the work).

Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
I bet we can find scientists who specialize in non-physic field (say botany) expressing believe in the theory of relativity. They may be open minded about the theory being provisional. But what gives them the right to believe that it is true?
I guess they think their peers have done this for them. Please not that the theory of relativity proposes "laws" which are neither true nor false, just a better approximation to observed phenomena than the previous set of laws (Newtonian Physics)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
How many scientists can you cite, who expressly profess to believe in the “theory of relativity”

I have no intend to think that scientist “believe” in theories in the same way as people “believe” in gods.
I did not mentioned anything religious in my first post.

To believe in something blindly is not confined to creationist or the religious people. Alchemist, some of whom are scientists do believe they can create gold.
The difference is that a competent scientist can conduct experiments any time they like to generate results which are consistent with the "laws" described in the theory or relativity. The same isn't true of your other examples.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2005, 09:00 AM   #43
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
. I cannot argue with that. We may both be right. It is a matter of opinion and definition of a concrete proof.
I would say a concrete proof would be something irrefutable. Not just evidence.
The standard you've set is fallacious. There is no such thing as "concrete", "irrefutable" "proof" in science. Reality is much messier than that, and the framework of science has been built to work within that mess, not like a philosopher or a mathematician.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2005, 11:48 PM   #44
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by John Bentley
... snipe ...
He left human evolution out altogether, precisely because he was scared of the implications for religion. However, he wrote a separate book about that later. And this is really what the argument is all about, isn't it? Religious types wouldn't give a rat's patooie about evolution if humans were found to be exempt from it.
Hi John,
I agree with the stuff you mentioned.
I did not read the "Origin of the Species". I attempted but gave up. Like you said it was rather dry.

Which means I'm not relying on "first hand" knowledge about Darwin's work to decide if I think evolution is sound or not.

I agree about Darwin's keen sensibility to avoid human evolution in the "Origin of Species", because he was aware of the implication for religion. Else he might have ended sadly like Galieo.

Facing such daunting situation, Darwin persisted.

I think it is unlikely that Darwin was motivated by blinded faith in his "new found" Theory.

The might have been motivated by some other thing.

I'm suggesting a pragmatic motivation.
That is, he found the "theory of evolution", allow him to design a sensible and useful way to classify his specimens.

Which lead to my initial question.
"Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?"

I'm keen to explore the value of pragmatism to Darwin.
And how we, learn how can we wield it. Perhaps using Darwin and the "Theory of evolution"
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2005, 11:58 PM   #45
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by The Don
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" contained a theory by which Darwin tried to explain his observations (his experiment if you prefer). It was presented as a theory in order that others could consider it.
I thought observation is very different from experiment.
Quote:
Originally posted by The Don I don't think anyone claims that there is irrefutable proof that evolution is the only way in which differences can occur. In view of the fossil evidence and experience with species in which evolution has been observed, evolution just fits the bill better than other evidence.
Agree it fitted better. As I see it, an "irrefutable proof" would make things very clear. But such a proof isn't clearly available. But something else kept the "Theory of Evolution" alive.
I'm encouraging discussion about how pragmatism might have helped sustained "Theory of Evolution"

Quote:
Originally posted by The Don
I'm not sure that they do accept new theories blindly, quite the contrary, one of the problems is that many scientists refuse to accept new thoeries and cling blindly to the old theories (based presumably on the collective intelligence of their peers having validated the work).

I guess they think their peers have done this for them. Please not that the theory of relativity proposes "laws" which are neither true nor false, just a better approximation to observed phenomena than the previous set of laws (Newtonian Physics)

The difference is that a competent scientist can conduct experiments any time they like to generate results which are consistent with the "laws" described in the theory or relativity. The same isn't true of your other examples.
Agree.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2005, 04:46 AM   #46
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
Hi John,
I agree with the stuff you mentioned.
I did not read the "Origin of the Species".
Do you know why I red-flagged this gaffe, Jyera?

Quote:
I'm keen to explore the value of pragmatism to Darwin.
And how we, learn how can we wield it. Perhaps using Darwin and the "Theory of evolution"
One wonders why you're so keen to set up a strawman and then persue it to death. One wonders if this is connected to the above gaffe.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2005, 06:52 AM   #47
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,477
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
I thought observation is very different from experiment.
Absolutely not! In fact, all "experiment" is is "observation under controlled conditions."

You set the conditions and then _observe_ the response.

Not only is observation not different from experiment, the main component of experiment IS observation.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2005, 08:35 AM   #48
Phaycops
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally posted by pgwenthold
Absolutely not! In fact, all "experiment" is is "observation under controlled conditions."

You set the conditions and then _observe_ the response.

Not only is observation not different from experiment, the main component of experiment IS observation.
Absolutely experiment and observation not different. I'd just like to add a couple of thoughts. In geology and paleontology, all we really have are the results of an experiment that was run millions, perhaps billions of years ago. So technically, we don't run "experiments" in the same way that, say, biologists or chemists do. But, we do comply with the same rules of the scientific method. Just because we're not actually doing "experiments" in the sense that laypeople think of them doesn't mean that we lack empirical evidence. If you like, Jeyra, some of us could go into a detailed discussion of the controls geologists and paleontologists and anthropologists and arhaeologists (sp?) use to make sure we get good data.
Phaycops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2005, 06:40 PM   #49
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by pgwenthold
Absolutely not! In fact, all "experiment" is is "observation under controlled conditions."

You set the conditions and then _observe_ the response.

Not only is observation not different from experiment, the main component of experiment IS observation.
Consider this...

1. Not only is "pure water" not different from a "salt solution",
the main component of "salt solution" IS "pure water".

Does not make sense to me.

2. Is as you have said it .... experiment is

"You set the conditions and then _observe_ the response."

Setting the condition is key difference from pure observation.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2005, 06:29 AM   #50
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,477
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
Consi

2. Is as you have said it .... experiment is

"You set the conditions and then _observe_ the response."

Setting the condition is key difference from pure observation.
You do not need to "set" the conditions for an experiment. You need to know them, and more importantly, the potential effects of them.

But in the end, you observe. You let things happen, and observe what takes place.

And no, a salt solution is not _very_ different from pure water. There are differences in degrees of activities, but salt solution behaves very much like pure water.

In fact, all the water you have ever encountered in your life is "salt" solution to some extent, but you can't tell the difference. That's a bad example.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2005, 02:24 AM   #51
Chaos Trigger
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 15
When you observe something, you want to know what's behind it. I wonder if man ever will be possible to find out that there is an observation with nothing to search for behind it.

Darwin may have not had many clues to what was behind his observations, which he could have meant with not having proof. What people of our times can see under their very eyes, is that all kinds of viruses like the AIDS virus are mutating, so evolution does exist.

It's up to religion if it wants to deny their own observations. It's up to fundamentalists to be able to see truth if it's presented in front of their eyes, and still be able to recognize it as such.
__________________
-----------------------------
Anyway, the best to all
Chaos Trigger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2005, 12:52 AM   #52
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Hi Billy,

I know why you "red-flagged the gaffe".
Be assured, I am a person who love Science.
So I hope you will be at easy that your concern is unfounded.

I know realities is messier than we hope it is.

Which is why I find CFLarsen's comment sensible.
"What does it matter what he (Darwin) thinks (Belief)?
What matters is what (he prove) evidence he has."

To add...

To hear Darwin say "I believe in evolution" is less exciting than
knowing that Darwin put "Theory of evolution" to good practical use. He used it to classify animals and plants.

Frankly I would like more discussion about how Darwin pragmatism helped science.
Eg. How in dispensible is the classification of animals and plants based on "Theory of Evolution". ?
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2005, 05:37 AM   #53
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
Hi Billy,

I know why you "red-flagged the gaffe".
Be assured, I am a person who love Science.
So I hope you will be at easy that your concern is unfounded.

I know realities is messier than we hope it is.

Which is why I find CFLarsen's comment sensible.
"What does it matter what he (Darwin) thinks (Belief)?
What matters is what (he prove) evidence he has."

To add...

To hear Darwin say "I believe in evolution" is less exciting than
knowing that Darwin put "Theory of evolution" to good practical use. He used it to classify animals and plants.

Frankly I would like more discussion about how Darwin pragmatism helped science.
Eg. How in dispensible is the classification of animals and plants based on "Theory of Evolution". ?
The classification of animals and plants was introduced long before Darwin. Darwin introduced a framework within which to explain how they all came to be.

Altering Claus' use of "evidence" to become "proof" or Darwin's treatise to become "pragmatic" serves straw more than it serves discussion or understanding.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2005, 03:00 PM   #54
c4ts
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,420
Re: Darwin believe in evolution without proof?

Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
Found this on the Internet:

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."


Question 1: Is it true ? Did Darwin say that in his letter?

Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?
It seems to be the case for Darwin. He believes evolution because of it's pragmatic benefit.
The letter is out of context. He might have been talking about previous theories of evolution which existed, but were unsupported before his study of them.

Darwin was the first to combine these theories into a coherent whole, support them with evidence, and write a publicly accessable book about it, which is 600 friggin' pages of proof. There is a lot of evidence beyond what he says, the theory has changed a little, but I highly suggest you read The Origin of the Species, just because it's a lot more interesting than current scientific journals, and it will at least give you some background on the subject.
c4ts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2005, 04:15 PM   #55
Lucky
Graduate Poster
 
Lucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,180
Why do people here persist in trying to interpret, or explain away, Darwin’s supposed comment when it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that he never made it? (Thanks largely to JamesM.)

Having read quite a few works by and about Darwin I have an appreciation of his attention to (obsession with?) detailed evidence for every assertion, no matter how trivial, and I was extremely surprised to see this alleged quote. I do not agree that his reasons for having confidence in the theory of evolution by natural selection are unimportant. It is of the utmost importance to know how he arrived at his conclusions, and it is not surprising to learn that it was from a combination of large amounts of evidence and large amounts of thought.

Jyera: as c4ts and others have suggested, the best way to understand Darwin’s estimation of the strength of his evidence is to read The Origin of Species. But you seem to have no grasp at all of the scientific/historical background to the development of Darwin’s ideas, nor of the distinction between the fact of evolution (for which he had no priority) and his theory of natural selection. I think you would find it useful to read some popular work about these subjects (suggestions, anyone?).
Quote:
From Jyera:
To hear Darwin say "I believe in evolution" is less exciting than
knowing that Darwin put "Theory of evolution" to good practical use. He used it to classify animals and plants.

Frankly I would like more discussion about how Darwin pragmatism helped science.
Eg. How in dispensible is the classification of animals and plants based on "Theory of Evolution". ?
It is true that Darwin made some important contributions to taxonomy (he had a lot to say about barnacles). I agree it is a very interesting question to what extent practical sciences like taxonomy benefit from theoretical underpinnings. And Darwin is probably the most interesting case study you could hope for in investigating this question. But you would need to know a great deal more about his work before there would be any point in having this discussion.

You can’t philosophise all that productively about scientific issues without studying the science first (have often wanted to say that on this board, but always managed to restrain myself).
Lucky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2005, 05:08 PM   #56
c4ts
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,420
Quote:
Originally posted by Lucky
Why do people here persist in trying to interpret, or explain away, Darwin’s supposed comment when it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that he never made it?
Because I don't read all the replies when I smell trollfeed...
c4ts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2005, 07:36 PM   #57
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by BillHoyt
The classification of animals and plants was introduced long before Darwin. Darwin introduced a framework within which to explain how they all came to be.
Agree. And I'm aware of it.

But before Darwin's "Theory of Evolution",
classification was not based on evolution.
TOE-based classification did not replace older system of classifying animal and plants.
But it did introduce a new way of classifying animals and plants based on origin of species.

Quote:
Originally posted by BillHoyt
Altering Claus' use of "evidence" to become "proof" or Darwin's treatise to become "pragmatic" serves straw more than it serves discussion or understanding. [/b]
Bill, please Read CFLarsen post, where he acknowledges that his use of "prove" isn't as good, and that he later preferred to use as "what evidence he has".

You are accusing me of twisting the truth of what CFLarsen intended to convey.

If CFLarsen step out to support you, saying that I had indeed distorted what he meant to convey, I'll apologise.

I'm not asking for an apology from you. But I felt that you had, perhaps unintentionally, created suspicion about my intent and integrity.

What do you mean by "serves more straw than it serves discussion or undetstanding"? Please explain.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2005, 08:07 PM   #58
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by Lucky
Why do people here persist in trying to interpret, or explain away, Darwin’s supposed comment when it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that he never made it? (Thanks largely to JamesM.)
Agree.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lucky

Having read quite a few works by and about Darwin I have an appreciation of his attention to (obsession with?) detailed evidence for every assertion, no matter how trivial, and I was extremely surprised to see this alleged quote. I do not agree that his reasons for having confidence in the theory of evolution by natural selection are unimportant. It is of the utmost importance to know how he arrived at his conclusions, and it is not surprising to learn that it was from a combination of large amounts of evidence and large amounts of thought.
That you had read his work, and was "extremely surprised to see this alleged quote."

I feel this piece of info is useful.

Care to explain Why are you extremely surprised?

Quote:
Originally posted by Lucky
Jyera: as c4ts and others have suggested, the best way to understand Darwin’s estimation of the strength of his evidence is to read The Origin of Species. But you seem to have no grasp at all of the scientific/historical background to the development of Darwin’s ideas, nor of the distinction between the fact of evolution (for which he had no priority) and his theory of natural selection. I think you would find it useful to read some popular work about these subjects (suggestions, anyone?).
Thanks Lucky.
I think such suggestion is beneficial to other layman as well.
It is NOT about me. It's about layman in general.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lucky

You can’t philosophise all that productively about scientific issues without studying the science first (have often wanted to say that on this board, but always managed to restrain myself).
Agree. But this thread is not about science, it's about ...

(1) Validity of a quote on the internet. My Question1 in first post.
(2) Benefit of pragmatism within a scientist (Not just Darwin). My Question2 in first post.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2005, 08:03 AM   #59
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
Agree. And I'm aware of it.

But before Darwin's "Theory of Evolution",
classification was not based on evolution.
TOE-based classification did not replace older system of classifying animal and plants.
But it did introduce a new way of classifying animals and plants based on origin of species.



Bill, please Read CFLarsen post, where he acknowledges that his use of "prove" isn't as good, and that he later preferred to use as "what evidence he has".

You are accusing me of twisting the truth of what CFLarsen intended to convey.

If CFLarsen step out to support you, saying that I had indeed distorted what he meant to convey, I'll apologise.

I'm not asking for an apology from you. But I felt that you had, perhaps unintentionally, created suspicion about my intent and integrity.

What do you mean by "serves more straw than it serves discussion or undetstanding"? Please explain.
Jyera,

You please read Larsen's posts. Claus' error was brought to his attention and he acknowledged the correction. The supposed Darwin quote has been challenged in previous posts. It seems, Jyera, that you willfully choose to acknowledge neither fact, and plow on, full speed, into a stack of hay.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2005, 07:29 PM   #60
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by BillHoyt
Jyera,

You please read Larsen's posts. Claus' error was brought to his attention and he acknowledged the correction. The supposed Darwin quote has been challenged in previous posts. It seems, Jyera, that you willfully choose to acknowledge neither fact, and plow on, full speed, into a stack of hay.
Yes, he acknowledged his correction,
I have read his post ... This is what I understand.

1. First CFLarsen said ...
"What does it matter what he thinks?
What matters is what he can prove."

2. Then both Steenkh and Asolepius disgree with CFLarsen use of the word "Prove".

3. Then CFLarsen responded in agreement to them and, as I understand it , he agreed to replace "what he can prove" to "what evidence he has" .
Quote... 'OK, OK..."what evidence he has".'

4. So that is how I conclude that he now meant to convey....
"What does it matter what he thinks?
What matters is what evidence he has."


5. To put it simply, as I say, unless CFLarsen come out to support you that I have misunderstood him, Bill, you owe me an apology for accusing me twisting CFLarsen words.

6. About the fact of Darwin's Quote being challenged.
I Not only acknowledge that it has been challenged, in fact, I came out in support that, I accept the conclusion that there is no prove that Darwin did said those stuff.
I quote my past post...
"Thanks JamesM for his search.
Technically, as of now, I would say there is no prove that Darwin did said those stuff ."


7. "Straw" is a negative jargon to me. It has become a word often found to be used for ridiculing others. And do not improve discussion. If you Sincerely wish to improve the productivity of the discussion, I urge you to stop using it. At least when talking to me. I do not wish to use/hear this word from you.
You seems to be enjoying the poetry of "straw", like "and plow on, full speed, into a stack of hay.". You do not impress me.

8. In Summary, BillHoyt,
(a) You owe me an apology until CFlarsen comes to your rescue.
(b) Yes, I acknowledged that, the said Darwin quote, has been challenged.
(c) I regret my foolishness to respond to your post.
Regret to fall to the temptation to treat you like a gentlemen. Regret to think that every poster who responded to this thread ought not be ignored. Frankly, due to lack of time, I have willfully and quietly ignored some other poster before, and yet I choose to respond to your post. Despite your SuspicionBuilding-Accusatory-OffensivelyStrawLaden post. I asked myself "Why?". Perhaps because I DO HAVE some respect for you and your views.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2005, 04:06 PM   #61
Lucky
Graduate Poster
 
Lucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,180
Jyera: Your first question about the alleged quote was whether it’s correct, and that shows pretty good critical thinking skills, especially as you plainly wanted to believe he wrote it. Apparently that would support your view (as I understand it) that ‘scientists accept new theories blindly’ and should carry out practical work rather than indulging in empty theorising. I disagree with this view (I think it is based on a misunderstanding of science). We can discuss that another time if you like, but for now I’ll give a brief answer (I’m just off for a few days' holiday) about the alleged quote and why it is so far from the mark.

There are two common misconceptions about Darwin. One is that he was a bumbling amateur, knowledgeable about nature study and livestock breeding, and his theory was due to a rare brainwave. The other is that he was an armchair philosopher who chose to isolate himself from contemporary science in favour of idle speculation. You seem to suspect him of both these deficiencies!

In fact, he was a rare combination of a meticulous and talented practical scientist and a deep thinker. The theory of evolution through natural selection was his greatest contribution, but his scientific pursuits were wide ranging and he made important contributions in several other areas. All of his work showed the same constructive interaction between practical expertise and original thinking. Amongst other topics, he investigated and explained where topsoil comes from, how coral atolls are formed, and the significance of symbiosis, and proposed the ‘out of Africa’ theory of human origins.

He was an obsessive and innovative experimenter, and his experiments informed all his theories (and vice versa). For example, he became interested by chance in a problem of barnacle taxonomy, decided to investigate, spent about ten years researching the topic (and experimenting!) and became the leading expert on barnacles.

You asked a lot of questions, and if you really want the answers then read The Origin of Species. Follow that up with The Voyage of the Beagle, The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms With Observations on Their Habits, On the Various Contrivances By Which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised By Insects, and The Descent of Man. Then you’ll be able to run rings round most of the posters here on the topics of evolution, taxonomy, the nature of scientific theory, experiments and scientific evidence etc. As I said, there are no effective shortcuts to understanding science; you have to study it (reading popular works by scientists will take you a long way).
Lucky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2005, 09:57 PM   #62
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Thanks Lucky for the insight about Darwin.
Looks like Darwin as a person is as interesting as his work.
I'll have to set aside time to read his book.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2005, 06:27 AM   #63
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
Yes, he acknowledged his correction,
I have read his post ... This is what I understand.

1. First CFLarsen said ...
"What does it matter what he thinks?
What matters is what he can prove."

2. Then both Steenkh and Asolepius disgree with CFLarsen use of the word "Prove".

3. Then CFLarsen responded in agreement to them and, as I understand it , he agreed to replace "what he can prove" to "what evidence he has" .
Quote... 'OK, OK..."what evidence he has".'

4. So that is how I conclude that he now meant to convey....
"What does it matter what he thinks?
What matters is what evidence he has."


5. To put it simply, as I say, unless CFLarsen come out to support you that I have misunderstood him, Bill, you owe me an apology for accusing me twisting CFLarsen words.

6. About the fact of Darwin's Quote being challenged.
I Not only acknowledge that it has been challenged, in fact, I came out in support that, I accept the conclusion that there is no prove that Darwin did said those stuff.
I quote my past post...
"Thanks JamesM for his search.
Technically, as of now, I would say there is no prove that Darwin did said those stuff ."


7. "Straw" is a negative jargon to me. It has become a word often found to be used for ridiculing others. And do not improve discussion. If you Sincerely wish to improve the productivity of the discussion, I urge you to stop using it. At least when talking to me. I do not wish to use/hear this word from you.
You seems to be enjoying the poetry of "straw", like "and plow on, full speed, into a stack of hay.". You do not impress me.

8. In Summary, BillHoyt,
(a) You owe me an apology until CFlarsen comes to your rescue.
(b) Yes, I acknowledged that, the said Darwin quote, has been challenged.
(c) I regret my foolishness to respond to your post.
Regret to fall to the temptation to treat you like a gentlemen. Regret to think that every poster who responded to this thread ought not be ignored. Frankly, due to lack of time, I have willfully and quietly ignored some other poster before, and yet I choose to respond to your post. Despite your SuspicionBuilding-Accusatory-OffensivelyStrawLaden post. I asked myself "Why?". Perhaps because I DO HAVE some respect for you and your views.
Did you respect the fact that Claus corrected his first post or did you continue to ignore the correction? Is that your idea of respect, Jyera?
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2005, 08:46 PM   #64
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by BillHoyt
Did you respect the fact that Claus corrected his first post or did you continue to ignore the correction? Is that your idea of respect, Jyera?
Yes, I respect CFLarsen's post, his correction, and whatever he actually meant to convey.

If he points out that I had misunderstood what he meant to convey, I shall apologise to him.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2005, 05:09 AM   #65
BillHoyt
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Jyera
Yes, I respect CFLarsen's post, his correction, and whatever he actually meant to convey.

If he points out that I had misunderstood what he meant to convey, I shall apologise to him.
Good to hear. I'm not really up on Miss Manners, but it is my personal observation that actions speak louder than words when it comes to respect. Therefore, I'm a bit at a loss to explain the avowed respect coupled with insistence on repeating someone else's earlier mistake after they've corrected it. I also perceive a disconnect when one acknowledges someone else's debunking of a claim (JamesM), but then goes on to argue about the claim as if it were real. And I perceive yet another disconnect when one seems to ignore another's keen point about the misdirected (and misdirecting) Darwin focus that fundamentalists insist on. Perhaps it is simply my perception.
BillHoyt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2005, 09:20 PM   #66
Jyera
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally posted by BillHoyt
Good to hear. I'm not really up on Miss Manners, but it is my personal observation that actions speak louder than words when it comes to respect. Therefore, I'm a bit at a loss to explain the avowed respect coupled with insistence on repeating someone else's earlier mistake after they've corrected it.
About respect for CFLarsen...
You should have been around long enough to know how CFLarsen react to people disrespectful to him.

My sensibility tells me that I have acted with respect towards him.
I appeal to your sensibility to acknowledge this.
Quote:
Originally posted by BillHoyt
I also perceive a disconnect when one acknowledges someone else's debunking of a claim (JamesM), but then goes on to argue about the claim as if it were real
There is a difference between realistic possibility and real/fact.
What do you mean by disconnect?
I don't think you meant to say that I must do critical thinking on a topic once and only once ?

Quote:
Originally posted by BillHoyt
And I perceive yet another disconnect when one seems to ignore another's keen point about the misdirected (and misdirecting) Darwin focus that fundamentalists insist on. Perhaps it is simply my perception.
About fundamentalists. ...
I take it you meant the religious folks.
As thread starter, I had decided that this is Not going to be YET another ID vs Evolution thread. Nor Religion vs Science thread. So I avoided reference to religion in the first post.

If there are evidence Darwin's said something, so be it. If there isn't evidence Darwin's said something, so be it.

It is NOT even about the science of "theory of evolution".
it's about ...
(1) Validity of a quote on the internet. My Question1 in first post.
(2) Benefit of pragmatism within a scientist (Not just Darwin). My Question2 in first post.
Jyera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2005, 06:50 PM   #67
Bill Burke
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally posted by NarrMaster
Well, I believe in the theory of gravity, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in understanding why I don't fly away from the earth, the motions of the planets, why objects fall at the same rate, the tides, etc....
I wonder if you aren't using the words theory and proof here in some special and obscure way.

If you see that apples repeatedly fall toward the earth when released from their attachment to trees, for example, what if anything would you take that evidence to be proof of?
Bill Burke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 05:06 AM   #68
shees1993
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 3
Cool

Originally Posted by Jyera View Post
Found this on the Internet:

Darwin's Letter to his friend, Sir Thomas Thompton, 1861: 'I believe in the theory of evolution, not because I have proof, but because it helps me in classification, Morphology, Embryology, and rudimentary organs..."


Question 1: Is it true ? Did Darwin say that in his letter?

Question 2: Does pragmatic needs justify belief without proof?
It seems to be the case for Darwin. He believes evolution because of it's pragmatic benefit.
I can answer Question 1.

Darwin did say that in his letter on 14 March [1861], but to Cuthbert Collingwood, not to Thomas Thompton. Darwin wrote:

… But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution …

Source
Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 9 • 1861, ed. Frederick Burkhardt et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 54; Darwin Correspondence Project [online], “Letter no. 3088”; British Library, Add. MS 37725, ff. 6–9b.

[NB: I could not include URLs because I'm new here. But if someone wants URLs then contact me at shees1993@rediff.com.]

Last edited by shees1993; 8th September 2018 at 07:05 AM.
shees1993 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 05:46 AM   #69
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,661
A thirteen year thread resurrection?

Is that a record?

The main protagonist hasn't been here since then, so is unlikely to read your reply, but welcome to the forum anyway.

ps. If you want to post URL just add some spaces and someone else can tidy them up. But I think in this case interest has long since waned.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 07:16 AM   #70
shees1993
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
A thirteen year thread resurrection?

Is that a record?

The main protagonist hasn't been here since then, so is unlikely to read your reply, but welcome to the forum anyway.

ps. If you want to post URL just add some spaces and someone else can tidy them up. But I think in this case interest has long since waned.
Thank you, sir! But others will at least realize that that letter does indeed exist!
shees1993 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 07:20 AM   #71
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,376
Welcome shees1993. Could you please post in normal font, normal colours, no bold, and so on. Thanks.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 07:21 AM   #72
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 506
I don't know what the point is here. Darwin accumulated a lot of evidence and put forward a theory to explain it. Of course he didn't have proof at that stage, he'd only just developed the idea, but a lot more evidence has been accumulated since. Who cares about a solitary letter?
Diablo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 09:09 AM   #73
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,838
The evidence that evolution occurs was established well before Darwin. Scientists of the 19th century were concerned with explaining how it happened.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 09:32 AM   #74
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,661
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Welcome shees1993. Could you please post in normal font, normal colours, no bold, and so on. Thanks.
It was in normal fonts etc, before he edited it.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 09:45 AM   #75
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
The evidence that evolution occurs was established well before Darwin. Scientists of the 19th century were concerned with explaining how it happened.
I meant specifically that species originate by means of natural selection.
Diablo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 09:47 AM   #76
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,838
I wasn't addressing you specifically.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 10:01 AM   #77
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,190
Finding a 13 year old post here which asks about a letter Darwin allegedly wrote is possibly more remarkable than finding the text of the real letter.

One thing which bothered me about the OP's misquote is that the phrase "not because I have proof" means only that proof is not the reason behind the writer's conclusion. It does not strictly mean the writer does not have proof.

In the corrected quote of course Darwin talks about believing the theory due to persuasive evidence rather than proof of a particular case of one species begetting another.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 10:12 AM   #78
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,035
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
I don't know what the point is here. Darwin accumulated a lot of evidence and put forward a theory to explain it. Of course he didn't have proof at that stage, he'd only just developed the idea, but a lot more evidence has been accumulated since. Who cares about a solitary letter?

You seem to want to apologize for Darwin ...
The letter shows a step on the way of Darwin's development of the theory of evolution, natural selection.

"I believe in Nat. Selection, (...) because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution"

All of the phenomena that he had been collecting, studying and wondering about needed an explanation, and natural selection, Darwininan evolution, was it. That is what science is: the (correct) explanation of things that aren't immediately obvious, self-evident. And that is why his theory of evolution was correct even though the mechanism by which is happens, i.e. DNA (and consequently mutations), wasn't discovered until a century later.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 11:58 AM   #79
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,746
Have the original posters in the thread died already?
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2018, 12:05 PM   #80
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Have the original posters in the thread died already?
They failed to evolve and got wiped out.
Diablo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.