Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Science, Math, and Philosophy Discussions regarding science, math, and/or philosophy.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2008, 04:43 AM   #51
tame_deuces
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tame_deuces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,452
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Complexity is a somewhat weird argument for design being the only possible solution.

Actually replace "weird" with "misguided".

It's like saying pyramids have to complex a design to build by mere humans, therefore they must have started building them on the top and worked themselves downwards.

Last edited by tame_deuces; 06-23-2008 at 04:49 AM.
tame_deuces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 05:20 AM   #52
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
They could have used you in court.
......... well, maybe... perhaps they used your argument and that nasty republican judge didn't buy it. It sounds familiar, but it's been a while since I read anything on it. I'm pretty sure your specific example has been shot down, but it's good enough for the gist of your argument here, anyway.
This is a lot stronger case for irreducible complexity than you might think. If you try to use the eyeball as an example of irreducible complexity, you can easily refute it by producing examples of eyes in nature in various stages of complexity across many different organism. I don't think there are any examples of bacteria flagellum in different stages of complexity. It occurs in nature in all its complexity or not at all.

Anyways, the judge made a good call in that particular case. However it wasn't scientific arguments that doomed the ID folks. It was their own internal documents.

Quote:
Main problem is it looks like the Argument from Ignorance in full array, "I can't explain it, therefore ..."
Yep, I would say most everyone here is making that logical fallacy. The attitude in this forum is "ID hasn't been proved true so it must be false therefore it doesn't belong in science class(especially since I find the idea distasteful)"

Stu

Last edited by Stu Pidasso; 06-23-2008 at 05:27 AM.
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 07:05 AM   #53
Sephus
Pooh-Bah
 
Sephus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,668
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
You are wrong.

The only assertion that Intelligent Design makes is that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
because the features are irreducibly complex! i am right.

Quote:
If that assertation is true, examples should exist that are simply too complex to have arisin via a natural process.
you just said "if it's true that certain features are best explained by an intelligent cause, then examples should exist that are not explained by an unintelligent cause (or "natural process")." that's NOT a prediction, you're just saying "if we think an intelligent cause is the best explanation, then it's probably because there are things we can't explain with unintelligent causes."


Quote:
Those examples are described as Irreducibly Complex. The effect of intelligent design is objects and systems which are Irreducibly Complex.
no, that's a possible effect of intelligent design the thing, not ID the "theory." i can intelligently design things that aren't irreducibly complex.

ID the "theory" is "life is irreducibly complex, therefore ID."

Quote:
CAUSE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO EFFECT. But that is what you are suggesting and you are dead wrong.
STOP CONFLATING INTELLIGENT DESIGN THE THING WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGN THE POSITION.

Quote:
What really strikes me as foolishly inconsistent is that some here believe that Creationism=Intelligent Design and Intelligent Design=Irreducible Complexity.

If this true Irreducible Complexity should equal Creationism. However its extemely easy to see that they are all completely different concepts.
you think that when people say "intelligent design is creationism" they're saying ID and creationism are the exact same thing?? seriously? they're saying ID was invented by creationists to specifically and entirely to support creationism.

you think when i say "ID asserts irreducible complexity" i'm saying "ID and 'irreducible complexity' are the exact same thing? no, one is part of the other.

and then you're going to ***** out about not being able to apply the transitive property to the terms (why you think you should be able to do this in general is mystifying) and call it "foolishly inconsistent"? seriously?
Sephus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 07:07 AM   #54
Sephus
Pooh-Bah
 
Sephus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,668
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
Yep, I would say most everyone here is making that logical fallacy. The attitude in this forum is "ID hasn't been proved true so it must be false therefore it doesn't belong in science class(especially since I find the idea distasteful)"
no, it's "ID is not science therefore it doesn't belong in science class."
Sephus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 01:13 PM   #55
bluesbassman
veteran
 
bluesbassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: In the pocket
Posts: 2,362
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
This is a lot stronger case for irreducible complexity than you might think. If you try to use the eyeball as an example of irreducible complexity, you can easily refute it by producing examples of eyes in nature in various stages of complexity across many different organism. I don't think there are any examples of bacteria flagellum in different stages of complexity. It occurs in nature in all its complexity or not at all.

Yep, I would say most everyone here is making that logical fallacy. The attitude in this forum is "ID hasn't been proved true so it must be false therefore it doesn't belong in science class(especially since I find the idea distasteful)"
Even if it's true that "irreducible complexity" falsifies non-theistic evolution, it still doesn't follow that ID is science.

Suppose, for example, that Einstein nor anyone else had figured out General Relativity yet. If in the meantime we precisely measure the orbits of certain planets such a Mercury, we find that Newton's Law of gravitation does not fully predict the complexity of that orbital trajectory. Thus this observation of "complex orbits" falsifies Newton's Laws.

As an alternative "explanation," suppose someone suggests that an "Intelligent Mover (IM)" must actually be directing the motion of the planets. Would IM be a valid candidate scientific theory? Of course not. A scientific theory must be cast in terms of previously integrated knowledge, as well as make testable predictions, at least in principle. The "IM theory" totally fails in both respects, as does ID. In fact neither posits any coherent theory at all.

Now let's consider the converse (which I believe is historically accurate). Suppose Einstein proposes GR, but there is no evidence yet which supports it. Should it be considered a (speculative) scientific theory, appropriate to teach at the advanced university level? Of course it should, since it provides a coherent theory, integrated with the rest of physics, and which can be tested. The theory of plate tectonics is another example of an initially speculative theory which became strengthened by subsequent evidence.

String theories also fall into the latter category. It is a coherent, mathematically rigorous theory, which can in principle be tested. It is science. ID is a vague "argument" from incredulity no different than my IM example. It hasn't been proved because it proposes no theory other than: "Goddidit... er, no,.. I mean an intelligent designer did it." That is NOT science, even if it's true.

You are the only one making logical fallacies here.
bluesbassman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 01:23 PM   #56
luckyme
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,800
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
T I don't think there are any examples of bacteria flagellum in different stages of complexity. It occurs in nature in all its complexity or not at all.
Stu
Just so you know you have your work cut out for you with that example, here's a snippet from Ken Miller -

Quote:
nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.
I don't follow ID literature so I don't know what they've moved on to now, perhaps you should check it up just so that part of your argument does sound so much like "what good is half an eye".
luckyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 09:09 PM   #57
GMontag
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,599
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
Your mistake is you believe Intelligent Design asserts the existence of a Supreme being. It does not. It only asserts the existence of an Intelligent Cause. You are making the mistake of confusing ID with Creationism.
Please show me where I mentioned a supreme being at all in my post. ID asserts the existence of an intelligent designer. That's all. ID doesn't assert or predict anything about irreducible complexity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
The only assertion that Intelligent Design makes is that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent Design only asserts an intelligent cause.

If that assertation is true, examples should exist that are simply too complex to have arisin via a natural process. Those examples are described as Irreducibly Complex. The effect of intelligent design is objects and systems which are Irreducibly Complex.
Your second paragraph doesn't follow from your first. There is no way that intelligent designer implies irreducible complexity. Not unless you can show that intelligent designers *must* make designs that are irreducibly complex.

Irreducible complexity is a red herring in the argument for ID.
GMontag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:05 PM   #58
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyme View Post
Just so you know you have your work cut out for you with that example, here's a snippet from Ken Miller -

I don't follow ID literature so I don't know what they've moved on to now, perhaps you should check it up just so that part of your argument does sound so much like "what good is half an eye".
What Miller is referring to is homolugus structures contained in toxic secretion systems of certain bacteria. Toxic secretion is quite removed from locomotion. I suppose its possible that a very complex system evolved for one function could in one(or at most a few) mutations change into another complex system with a completely different function. However, usually one sees systems evolve from the simple to the complex while maintaining the same purpose. Light sensing cells evolve into simple eyes which evolve into better and more complex eyes. You don't see fins evolving into eyes which is equivalent to what Miller is suggesting.

Stu

Last edited by Stu Pidasso; 06-23-2008 at 11:16 PM.
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:14 PM   #59
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
String theories also fall into the latter category. It is a coherent, mathematically rigorous theory, which can in principle be tested.
The fact is the amount of evidence for String Theory is equivalent to the amount of evidence for Intelligent Design. That amount being ZERO.

Yet you and others are willing to give String Theroy a pass into science class. Its not science until it can be tested. Same goes for Intelligent Design. String Theory belongs in math class and Intelligent Design in philosophy.

Stu
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:26 PM   #60
furyshade
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
furyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 10,138
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
The fact is the amount of evidence for String Theory is equivalent to the amount of evidence for Intelligent Design. That amount being ZERO.

Yet you and others are willing to give String Theroy a pass into science class. Its not science until it can be tested. Same goes for Intelligent Design. String Theory belongs in math class and Intelligent Design in philosophy.

Stu
you seem to make some pretty sweeping statements about science. the point of teaching string theory is not to teach it as proven fact, it is to show what is happening in science. the prerequisit physics to grasp a mathematical understanding of string theory would be too much for any high school class or lower level college class, but the idea is to explain what is currently of interest in physics. the point is to show that science is dynamic, which ID does not do but string theory does.
furyshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:33 PM   #61
GMontag
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,599
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
The fact is the amount of evidence for String Theory is equivalent to the amount of evidence for Intelligent Design. That amount being ZERO.

Yet you and others are willing to give String Theroy a pass into science class. Its not science until it can be tested. Same goes for Intelligent Design. String Theory belongs in math class and Intelligent Design in philosophy.

Stu
It would behoove you to not repeat arguments that have already been debunked. String theory makes plenty of predictions that have been confirmed. ID makes none.
GMontag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:35 PM   #62
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by furyshade View Post
you seem to make some pretty sweeping statements about science. the point of teaching string theory is not to teach it as proven fact, it is to show what is happening in science. the prerequisit physics to grasp a mathematical understanding of string theory would be too much for any high school class or lower level college class, but the idea is to explain what is currently of interest in physics. the point is to show that science is dynamic, which ID does not do but string theory does.
Back in the day when String theory was career-ruining and laughable, it still would have been allowed in science class.

Stu
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:36 PM   #63
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMontag View Post
It would behoove you to not repeat arguments that have already been debunked. String theory makes plenty of predictions that have been confirmed. ID makes none.
Name one predicition that has been confirmed that isn't really GR.

Stu
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:44 PM   #64
GMontag
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,599
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
Name one predicition that has been confirmed that isn't really GR.

Stu
The fact that another theory *also* makes those predictions is irrelevant.
GMontag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:50 PM   #65
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMontag View Post
The fact that another theory *also* makes those predictions is irrelevant.

So I take it you would not have a problem teaching theistic evolution in public schools.

Stu
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008, 11:53 PM   #66
GMontag
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,599
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
So I take it you would not have a problem teaching theistic evolution in public schools.

Stu
Theistic evolution doesn't make any predictions at all. The analogy fails.
GMontag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:02 AM   #67
furyshade
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
furyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 10,138
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
Back in the day when String theory was career-ruining and laughable, it still would have been allowed in science class.

Stu
there is no way you can substantiate this statement
furyshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:34 AM   #68
Max Raker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Max Raker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lebesgue Airlines
Posts: 15,738
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
Name one predicition that has been confirmed that isn't really GR.

Stu
Huh? String theory makes tons of predictions that are not GR. Extra dimensions, spin 2 graviton, supersymmetry etc. The problem is not that string theory doesn't make predictions, but that other quantum field theories make the same ones. Why we are studying it is that it may provide a method to understand physics at all energies, which no other theory right now can do. The fact that they can't be tested yet is a silly reason to think it is not science.
Max Raker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:37 AM   #69
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMontag View Post
Theistic evolution doesn't make any predictions at all. The analogy fails.
Don't be silly, its a great analogy! Theistic evolution doesn't make any testible predictions that are not made in Evolution. String theory doesn't make any testible predictions that are not made in GR.

Prove me wrong. Post one testible prediction that string theory has made that didn't come from GR or Quantum M.

Su

Last edited by Stu Pidasso; 06-24-2008 at 12:42 AM.
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:39 AM   #70
Max Raker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Max Raker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lebesgue Airlines
Posts: 15,738
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
.
String theory is a neat and elegant idea, but thats all it is until you can perform experiments. It hasn't moved from the realm of being an idea to science.
No working scientist would agree with this. Hawking radiation has not been observed and may not ever be.
Max Raker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:41 AM   #71
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker View Post
Huh? String theory makes tons of predictions that are not GR. Extra dimensions, spin 2 graviton, supersymmetry etc.
And your claiming we have tested these? You know were talking about testible prediction correct?

Stu
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:48 AM   #72
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker View Post
No working scientist would agree with this. Hawking radiation has not been observed and may not ever be.
You can observe a black hole's loss in mass over time. Therefore you can observe Hawking's radiation indirectly. If you can't observe either directly or indirectly, its not science. Its an idea.

Can you observes strings directly or indirectly?

Stu
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 12:54 AM   #73
Stu Pidasso
banned
 
Stu Pidasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hiding from Mat "Slasher" Sklansky
Posts: 12,373
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by furyshade View Post
there is no way you can substantiate this statement
No I can't substantiate it other than I have been reading and posting in this forum for a long time and I know the audience. They would have all given it a pass, you included.

Stu
Stu Pidasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 01:08 AM   #74
furyshade
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
furyshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 10,138
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
No I can't substantiate it other than I have been reading and posting in this forum for a long time and I know the audience. They would have all given it a pass, you included.

Stu
i wouldn't if it weren't a leading theory in physics at the time. there are plently of alternative theories out there to string theory that i don't think should be taught because not enough research has been done in them. the rest of the world doesn't run on the beliefs of this forum, why would science classes be any different?
furyshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 01:14 AM   #75
GMontag
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,599
Re: Should string theory be taught in science class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso View Post
Don't be silly, its a great analogy! Theistic evolution doesn't make any testible predictions that are not made in Evolution. String theory doesn't make any testible predictions that are not made in GR.

Prove me wrong. Post one testible prediction that string theory has made that didn't come from GR or Quantum M.

Su
Didn't we just go over this? The fact that other theories also make the same predictions is entirely irrelevant. The issue is this:

Code:
Theory     |        Number of predictions
Evolution  |                Some
ID         |                None

Again, ID makes no predictions at all. Every single piece of evidence you can possibly imagine observing is compatible with ID.
GMontag is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -4. The time now is 03:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive