[Raphael]

To be clear, Raphael, are you saying that you think the development of ears and eyes disproves the theory of evolution?

to be clear graham, which theory of evolution are you endorsing?

the gradual or punctuated theory?

selah V

[Ophiolite]

I, too, welcome my work being questioned so long as the questions are friendly in intention.

I found this remark quite telling. I may be reading too much into it in which case I hope you will correct me.

If I have prepared a research paper, an engineering report, or a business plan I welcome that work being questioned and I am wholly indifferent to the friendliness of the intention. Friendlieness will not make the findings of my research more accurate; friendliness will not make the conclusions of my engineering report more useful; friendliness will not ensure the success of my business plan.

I expect, indeed I demand, a probing, skeptical, hostile attack upon my observations, my interpretations, my conclusions and my recommendations. Anything less may fail to unearth weaknesses or errors and I do not wish to be associated with second rate work.

In contrast you seem to be more concerned about the form of the criticism (and its intent) rather than its efficacy. Am I reading you correctly and if so can you explain why you would favour an approach that is less efficient at improving  the 'end product'?

[Raphael]

I, too, welcome my work being questioned so long as the questions are friendly in intention.

I found this remark quite telling. I may be reading too much into it in which case I hope you will correct me.

If I have prepared a research paper, an engineering report, or a business plan I welcome that work being questioned and I am wholly indifferent to the friendliness of the intention. Friendlieness will not make the findings of my research more accurate; friendliness will not make the conclusions of my engineering report more useful; friendliness will not ensure the success of my business plan.

I expect, indeed I demand, a probing, skeptical, hostile attack upon my observations, my interpretations, my conclusions and my recommendations. Anything less may fail to unearth weaknesses or errors and I do not wish to be associated with second rate work.

In contrast you seem to be more concerned about the form of the criticism (and its intent) rather than its efficacy. Am I reading you correctly and if so can you explain why you would favour an approach that is less efficient at improving  the 'end product'?

how about you just focus on the 'work' being offered instead of offering nonsense?

i.e. semite semantics about how he/she phrased their request for discussion...?

I expect, indeed I demand, a probing, skeptical, hostile attack upon my observations, my interpretations, my conclusions and my recommendations. Anything less may fail to unearth weaknesses or errors and I do not wish to be associated with second rate work.

DISCUSS the topic?
What a concept?
You are so typical of the nonsense trolling the internet...
why do folks who have so little to say always manage to find an issue in what somebody said or how they said it, resorting to even pointing out grammar or spelling errors?

geeshhhhhhh IMHO folks like you are an anchor to any kind of discussion.
Do you mind if I toss you overboard and severe the rope so we can continue on with the journey?

there ya go.
there is my observation and my hostile attack probing your skepticism regarding how pantodragon phrased his request for discussion.

selah V

[graham.d]

Raphael, it was you who cited "evolution" without qualification, not me. I was just trying to understand your comments...

"Evolution is in fact a FAIL
Science is clearly a punk still on its learning curve...

Eyes and Ears are proof of the obvious without even getting into irreducible complexity.
Those that have EARS let them hear and SEE the obvious."

I don't think whether evolution is "continuous" or features "punctuated equilibrium" makes any difference to the overall concept of evolution in the general sense.

[Raphael]

I don't think whether evolution is "continuous" or features "punctuated equilibrium" makes any difference to the overall concept of evolution in the general sense.

but it does

it shows that science is negating science, that is clear.
Science like religion is at odds with itself.

Richard Dawkins has criticized the punctuated equilibrium theory as "destroying the theory of evolution's crediablity".
So what camp are you in?
Which of the 12 camps surrounding the Ark in the bible can I find you in?
lol

And why have bats not evolved much in 50 million years?
Were bats perfectly or intelligently designed by nature from the word go?
oops pardon me....the bat has evolved into the Dark Knight and 21st century manipulations and exploitations and propheting from the eternal ark-E-types?

Where are those missing links graham that science can't seem to find...?
In Hollywood Frodo that is where you will find where the ring has been crafted?

And here is another arena where the science scholars, everybody armed with their PhDUH cannot seem to agree.
Come blow your shofar horn here and leave a comment on my blog.
37 – Neanderthal Bone Flute – Do – Re – Mi – Fa
>>> http://at37.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/37-neanderthal-bone-flute-do-re-mi-fa/ [nofollow]

Oh look I found a missing link!!
It is Charles DUHwin himself?



I wonder if Charles DUHwin played the flute?
Because with his supraorbital ridge (or brow ridge), it is clear that he might have had Neanderthal DNA in his makeup.

And that would be cosmic justice or should I say 'just is'.
LOL

selah V
ox

[graham.d]

Actually Dawkins critique was more concerned about showing that "punctuated equilibrium" did not conflict with continuous evolution and that the scientific press (and to some extent the authors Eldredge and Gould) made more of this concept than it deserved.

It is not "science negating science" at all, even if there was a theory that did result in rethinking the original concepts. Science aims to exactly do this. Theories are there to be disproven but not discarded on the basis of simple non-belief. Evolution as a theory, has been tested regularly and has yet to really fail any significant test - and there are plenty of attacks from religions and concepts such as intelligent design. Before these idea came along in the 19th century the only view of how flora and forna came about were the, now obviously false, religious ones.

[evan_au]

OK, so now we've seen an example of how a robust attack & defence of theories can quickly degenerate, especially when there are strongly held opinions and emotions heat up.

In some ways this confirms the original assertion that

People behave as they are treated.

It is an instructive example - but that particular debate must be continued in other threads, eg http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46731.0

To a large extent, a scientific debate (and normal social interaction) is oiled by politeness, and helped by sticking to the facts.

[Raphael]

Actually Dawkins critique was more concerned about showing that "punctuated equilibrium" did not conflict with continuous evolution and that the scientific press (and to some extent the authors Eldredge and Gould) made more of this concept than it deserved.

It is not "science negating science" at all, even if there was a theory that did result in rethinking the original concepts. Science aims to exactly do this. Theories are there to be disproven but not discarded on the basis of simple non-belief. Evolution as a theory, has been tested regularly and has yet to really fail any significant test - and there are plenty of attacks from religions and concepts such as intelligent design. Before these idea came along in the 19th century the only view of how flora and forna came about were the, now obviously false, religious ones.

yes graham.d as evan suggests our discussion can continue here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46731.0 [nofollow]

selah V

[Ophiolite]

how about you just focus on the 'work' being offered instead of offering nonsense?

We are in danger of moving off topic, but could you explain what you think is nonsensical about a robust peer review system? In essence that is what I described; that is what I said I was in favour of; that is what has served science rather well. Where is the nonsense?

While the 'work' is obviously of central importance other members had addressed it. I believe the attitude an author has to criticism of their work is pertinent. Do you feel it is wholly unimportant, or just of too minor a relevance to warrant attention?

DISCUSS the topic?
What a concept?

I like Marshall McLuhan's expression the medium is the message. How someone presents their thesis is important. Would you agree to any degree? As I just noted others have addressed aspects of pantodragon's thesis. I have chosen to address the relevant issue of how they perceive that thesis. Why do you feel this is invalid as an approach?

You are so typical of the nonsense trolling the internet...
why do folks who have so little to say always manage to find an issue in what somebody said or how they said it, resorting to even pointing out grammar or spelling errors?

I don't believe I have pointed out any errors at all. I have implied a concern about an apparent unwillingness on the part of pantodragon to entertain hostile criticism of their work. Do you think people should reject or ignore criticism of their work that is hostile? If so, why?

Do you mind if I toss you overboard and severe the rope so we can continue on with the journey?

I would prefer it if you would take the time to consider my questions and points and respond to them. Of course it remains your choice.

there is my observation and my hostile attack probing your skepticism regarding how pantodragon phrased his request for discussion.

I'll be able to gain more from it if you are willing to address my resultant questions.

Thanks.
O.

[pantodragon (OP)]

Karl Popper revolutionised the philosophy of science by pointing out that you can never prove a theory correct, no matter how many observations you make; you can only succeed in proving it false.

I daresay what Popper says may be true, but I feel hesitant to accept, feeling something niggling at the back of my mind.  Really I would have to see his arguments.  However, I think that what he says may be true, but it is not interesting, and it is not interesting because it is not a SIGNIFICANT characteristic of scientific theory. 

This sort of thing is a great problem today; one sees the practice all over the place, not just in science: one can ferret away and find some aspect of scientific theories or the scientific method that has not yet been described and one can then make one’s name by making much of it, or rather by making over much of it.  The real trick is to be able to pick out what is SIGNIFICANT from all the detailed characteristics.

The bad thing about Popper’s idea is that it’s a killer.  To live by constantly criticizing, constantly trying to prove things wrong, constantly finding obstacles to put in the way of things, is to kill all creativity, to kill all joy, and eventually to succumb to depression.  You see this sort of attitude in many people and where you see it, you also see depression.  Creativity comes from a more positive attitude, an attitude of delight in new ideas, a desire to grab a new idea and run with it and see where it will get you.  This latter is a cooperative attitude and cooperation leads to richness and diversity such as one finds in the natural world.  Popper’s shoot-down system is competitive and it leads to “last man standing” i.e. to loss of diversity, to impoverishment.

[pantodragon (OP)]

In contrast you seem to be more concerned about the form of the criticism (and its intent) rather than its efficacy. Am I reading you correctly and if so can you explain why you would favour an approach that is less efficient at improving  the 'end product'?

I think you have it the wrong way round.  It is friendliness which is efficient and improving.  Hostility is a time waster, a liar, cunning trickster, lawyerish, teasing and is out to kill by any means possible, including using psychological games (well known in the chess arena) to induce failure where in a straight contest there might be success.  (Also, see my reply to evan_au re Popper.)

[Airthumbs]

Hello Pantodragon, may I ask what your objective would be here in the question proposed?

[pantodragon (OP)]

Hello Pantodragon, may I ask what your objective would be here in the question proposed?

To initiate a discussion on the causes of evil, with particular reference to the issues I raised in the original post.  If the thread has strayed somewhat from its starting point, I have no problem with that.  That's the way discussion go, that's how you get to new places and new ideas.