wellwisher
Well-Known Member
One problem I have with the theory of evolution is the continued use of statistics instead of pure reason and math logic. Statistics has a watered down criteria of acceptability, compared to rational theory.
In a rational theory, like Newtonian Gravity, all observed non relativistic data points have to touch the curve. If a few are missing, such as were relativistic data points, a new theory had to be created.
In statistics, it is about probability with margins of error, meaning the curve does not have to touch all the data points to still be called acceptable. Such watered down criteria of science can cheat using statistical semantics and its looser standards. If Newton could have used statistical arguments, the Relativistic models of gravity could have been avoided. This would have been bad for science.
The other problem is the term finite probability of something occurring. This is similar to a miracle. This event can defy all rational explanations; first life, yet still be used because it is protected based on semantics. How did the first life appear on earth? Evolution gets to use a miracle with finite odds and not be called religion.
Could anyone in science define evolution without any fudge factors of statistics? In other words, if we took away all traces of statistical analysis, would there be any†hing left? The needed change would require a rational analysis that can make accurate predictions and explain things without any self serving fudge factors, that ignores any inaccuracies.
I am a scientist who prefers the rational approach. This is much harder to do than the water down standards which everyone seems to prefer. I am not anti-science but I am anti watered down science.
If you look at the Corona virus, the percent of people who catch it are a small fraction of all people. Those who die are a small percent of that subset. Yet this can be spun too make people hysterical instead of rational. This is due to the cheating of statistics and the lack of reason involved in the nature of statistical reality. In this case, a possible negative miracle becomes a possible bogeyman. This is pre-age of reason.
If we apply the rational theory standard to evolution, and I can show any data points that do not fit, then the theory has to be revised. Every debate on evolution reveals new data points that do not apply and which would require an update in rational science. This is held back based on the watered down standard.
In a rational theory, like Newtonian Gravity, all observed non relativistic data points have to touch the curve. If a few are missing, such as were relativistic data points, a new theory had to be created.
In statistics, it is about probability with margins of error, meaning the curve does not have to touch all the data points to still be called acceptable. Such watered down criteria of science can cheat using statistical semantics and its looser standards. If Newton could have used statistical arguments, the Relativistic models of gravity could have been avoided. This would have been bad for science.
The other problem is the term finite probability of something occurring. This is similar to a miracle. This event can defy all rational explanations; first life, yet still be used because it is protected based on semantics. How did the first life appear on earth? Evolution gets to use a miracle with finite odds and not be called religion.
Could anyone in science define evolution without any fudge factors of statistics? In other words, if we took away all traces of statistical analysis, would there be any†hing left? The needed change would require a rational analysis that can make accurate predictions and explain things without any self serving fudge factors, that ignores any inaccuracies.
I am a scientist who prefers the rational approach. This is much harder to do than the water down standards which everyone seems to prefer. I am not anti-science but I am anti watered down science.
If you look at the Corona virus, the percent of people who catch it are a small fraction of all people. Those who die are a small percent of that subset. Yet this can be spun too make people hysterical instead of rational. This is due to the cheating of statistics and the lack of reason involved in the nature of statistical reality. In this case, a possible negative miracle becomes a possible bogeyman. This is pre-age of reason.
If we apply the rational theory standard to evolution, and I can show any data points that do not fit, then the theory has to be revised. Every debate on evolution reveals new data points that do not apply and which would require an update in rational science. This is held back based on the watered down standard.
