What, if any, is the role of the scientific method in the theory of evolution?

[Zosimus]

No, they aren't.

Falsification, relating to science, is examining any statement that is refutable. Refutability can only be objectively achieve through testing and experimentation.

And testing or testability is a mean of verification and refuting.

Falsification is far from being the opposite end to verification. They should hand-in-hand.



So if a statement is untestable, then it unfalsifiable...and if it is unfalsifiable, it is unscientific.

Science, especially natural science (this would include physics, chemistry and biology), is not immutable.

Even in social science, nothing is immutable.

Verificationism is the claim that any claim that cannot, at least theoretically, be verified to be true is not science and meaningless.
Falsificationism is the realization that nothing can be shown to be true. It attempts to put science on a solid logical footing by focusing science not on showing that theories are good and true but on testing and refuting bad theories.

Nothing less than an infinite number of tests could ever hope to verify a theory.

 

[Zosimus]

Evidence?

First of all, dark matter cannot explain the rotation of galaxies. MOND does a far better job.

Second, http://www.space.com/4554-scientists-dark-matter-exist.html

Finally, dark matter has never been observed.

In conclusion, there is no reason to believe in dark matter and every reason to believe that it does not exist.

 

[gnostic]

Look, I don't give a crap about "-ism" this or "-ism" that, because I don't give a rat's a## about philosophies. They have some merits, but I am not going to follow one -ism over another. If you want to, then that's your right.

I am talking only about evidences, testings, refuting, verifying and falsifying as they are used in science.

I agreed that falsification involved in testing and refuting theories and hypotheses, but at the same time, if the theories are found to be true after testing, then the testing would verify that they are true. Testings can refute or verify.

 

[Zosimus]

Look, I don't give a crap about "-ism" this or "-ism" that, because I don't give a rat's a## about philosophies. They have some merits, but I am not going to follow one -ism over another. If you want to, then that's your right.

I am talking only about evidences, testings, refuting, verifying and falsifying as they are used in science.

I agreed that falsification involved in testing and refuting theories and hypotheses, but at the same time, if the theories are found to be true after testing, then the testing would verify that they are true. Testings can refute or verify.

No, testings(sic) cannot verify that a theory is true.

If tests could do so, then Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation would have been verified true ages ago. It had centuries of accuracy behind it. Yet we now know that the theory is not true because it has its failings.

So all of those multiple verifications mean absolutely squat.

I can easily construct a sequence of verification that implies that you do not exist.

For the set of all ("gnostic") each and every gnostic is part of the set of ("things that don't exist"). This is what we mean to prove.
I plan to prove this by proving that for each and every thing that exists, that thing is not a gnostic.

I exist. I'm not gnostic.
This computer exists. It's not gnostic.
My chair exists. It's not gnostic.
The receptionist exists. She's not gnostic.
My smartphone exists. It's not gnostic.
My boss exists. He's not gnostic.
The student who's sitting in the same room as me exists. He's not gnostic.
In fact, each and every one of the thousands of people around me is not gnostic.
Each and every one of the stars I can see in the sky (and there are millions) is not gnostic.
Each and every grain of sand on the beaches near me is not gnostic.

Therefore, it has been repeatedly and extensively verified that there are many things that exist that are not gnostic.

Therefore, the question is: Do these verifications mean anything? If I started with a 50-50 chance that gnostic exists, after all of these verifications, what should my final conclusion be about whether gnostic exists?

 

[Revoltingest]

First of all, dark matter cannot explain the rotation of galaxies. MOND does a far better job.

Second, http://www.space.com/4554-scientists-dark-matter-exist.html

Finally, dark matter has never been observed.

In conclusion, there is no reason to believe in dark matter and every reason to believe that it does not exist.

Speculation proffered as inerrant fact.
MOND doesn't address dark matter.
As the great philosopher, Dirty Harry, once said....
"A man's got to know his limitations."
In other words....
Don't confuse opinions with settled facts.

 

[Zosimus]

MOND doesn't address dark matter.

Yeah, that's the point. That's the strength not the weakness. Try to keep up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that's the point. That's the strength not the weakness. Try to keep up.

You said MOND explains it better.
Now you agree with me that it doesn't even address dark matter.
And you claim victory.
I don't think I've the necessary intellectual characteristics to keep up with you.

 

[Zosimus]

You said MOND explains it better.

Yes, MOND completely explains the rotation of spiral galaxies without the need for fictional matter, such as dark matter.

Now you agree with me that it doesn't even address dark matter.

Correct. MOND doesn't rely on imaginary matter to explain the world.

And you claim victory.

No, I would claim victory by referencing a study such as this one in which dark matter could not be found.

I don't think I've the necessary intellectual characteristics to keep up with you.

I agree wholeheartedly!

 

[viole]

I agree wholeheartedly!

It depends. Not having the necessary intellectual characteristics to keep up with you, is sort of an ambiguous statement, isn't it? Lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

Zosimus.

You are overlooking that the "verification" and "falsification" both required "testing".

The "testing" will either refute a statement as being "false" or verify the statement as being "true". It depends on the evidences discovered.

If the evidences (in the tests) are shown to be AGAINST hypothesis or theory, then the statement is false, and have been refuted or debunked.

If the evidences (in the tests) are shown to be FOR the hypothesis or theory, then the statement has been tested and "verified" to be true.

The tests can go either ways.

Falsification deal with the question that any statement has to be "testable", meaning the statement has to be "refutable".

Being "refutable" doesn't mean it is true or false; it just mean that the statement has the potential of being true or false.

The only way to really determine the statement being true or false is through actual testings or finding evidences that the true or false.

Falsification is actually determine BEFORE any testing is done. Falsification is determining if the statement is testable. If for whatever reason that you can't test a statement (be they hypotheses or theories), hence "untestable", then this statement is "unfalsifiable"...and if it is unfalsifiable then it is also "unscientific".

Verification and refutation, on the other hand, can only occur AFTER tests have been done or evidences have been found. Nothing is true, until after the tests.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but I must be missing something.

What is mond? Is that supposed to be abbreviation for something?

I am guessing that since you two are talking about dark matters, I am thinking it may be related to gravity.

 

[Zosimus]

Zosimus.

You are overlooking that the "verification" and "falsification" both required "testing".

The "testing" will either refute a statement as being "false" or verify the statement as being "true". It depends on the evidences discovered.

Completely, completely, completely wrong. If my statement is "All swans are white" and I find a black swan, then the statement has been falsified whereas if I find a white swan, the statement has not been "verified as being true." Finding one white swan does not prove that all swans are white.

If the evidences (in the tests) are shown to be AGAINST hypothesis or theory, then the statement is false, and have been refuted or debunked.

One would think so, but in reality this is untrue. At least one is on solid logical grounds, but in reality statements cannot be falsified either. Here's a simple example. Imagine that we all get together to determine the speed of light and that it is constant. On our first try, we determine that the speed of light is half of what has been measured before whereas the second and third times we get the expected number. Have we proved that the speed of light is sometimes slower? Not necessarily. It would be easy for someone to postulate that the equipment or procedure failed the first time for some unknown reason. When a test comes off with a number that is not expected, you can only know that something is wrong, but you cannot know what that something is.

If the evidences (in the tests) are shown to be FOR the hypothesis or theory, then the statement has been tested and "verified" to be true.

Again, wrong for the reasons previously stated.

Falsification deal with the question that any statement has to be "testable", meaning the statement has to be "refutable".

As I have already pointed out, falsification is important because it's a logically sound procedure (even though it cannot actually occur). Confirmations, on the other hand, mean nothing.

Being "refutable" doesn't mean it is true or false; it just mean that the statement has the potential of being true or false.

Thanks for explaining my own language to me. I appreciate it.

The only way to really determine the statement being true or false is through actual testings or finding evidences that the true or false.

Untrue for the reasons already stated.

Falsification is actually determine BEFORE any testing is done. Falsification is determining if the statement is testable. If for whatever reason that you can't test a statement (be they hypotheses or theories), hence "untestable", then this statement is "unfalsifiable"...and if it is unfalsifiable then it is also "unscientific".

Aye, that's my objection to the statement "Evolution occurs through natural selection." It's unfalsifiable and untestable.

Verification and refutation, on the other hand, can only occur AFTER tests have been done or evidences have been found. Nothing is true, until after the tests.

Even after the tests nothing is true. That's the real point.

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry, but I must be missing something.

What is mond? Is that supposed to be abbreviation for something?

I am guessing that since you two are talking about dark matters, I am thinking it may be related to gravity.

MOND = Modified Newton Dynamics. It is superior to the theory of dark matter in some cases and inferior in others.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/

 

[Blastcat]

First, let me make it clear that I believe evolution is a fact. I am not a scientist and have a simple approach to life and the way I see it is that you do not need all the pieces of a puzzle to get the picture. I have read a lot of arguments that attempt to proof evolution as a lie, but it does not take a genius to spot the flaws in the reasoning of most of these attempts. However, I would like to know how scientists respond to those who say evolution cannot be proven as a fact by using the scientific method. Am I wrong to think that there is some truth in the statement? They claim that the process of evolution cannot be repeated by an independent party.

For me, the trail of evidence that evolution left behind is enough proof, but I would like to hear what the experts have to say about the role of the scientific method in the theory of evolution.
Please be kind when responding, I am not trying to make a point or begin an argument. All I want is to learn more.

Yeah, well we can't reproduce the big bang in the lab, either.. or the weather of the Earth.. or even anything that happened in the PAST over billions of years.. should we throw all of that out too?

Geology should be stopped? We can't re-created the creation of the world... not in a lab we can't.. so did it never happen?

There has been 150 years of scientists confirming the theory of evolution.. is it more reasonable to think that they all are wrong, lying or anti-religious or something than it is to believe that they MIGHT have a clue as to how science is done.

Does biology and geology have a pretty good track record GENERALLY speaking? ...

What's more likely.. that the Genesis story is literally true, or that scientists really know how to do science?

What do you think?

 

[Zosimus]

Yeah, well we can't reproduce the big bang in the lab, either.. or the weather of the Earth.. or even anything that happened in the PAST over billions of years.. should we throw all of that out too?

Geology should be stopped? We can't re-created the creation of the world... not in a lab we can't.. so did it never happen?

There has been 150 years of scientists confirming the theory of evolution.. is it more reasonable to think that they all are wrong, lying or anti-religious or something than it is to believe that they MIGHT have a clue as to how science is done.

Does biology and geology have a pretty good track record GENERALLY speaking? ...

What's more likely.. that the Genesis story is literally true, or that scientists really know how to do science?

What do you think?

Well, at least black holes and big bang theories have rigorous mathematical proof of feasability. Too bad we cannot say the same thing about Darwinism.

 

[Blastcat]

Well, at least black holes and big bang theories have rigorous mathematical proof of feasability. Too bad we cannot say the same thing about Darwinism.

Are you talking about the theory of evolution.. or something else?

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of the Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel,[8] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of later theoretical developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift, for example.[9][10] In the United States, creationists often use the term "Darwinism" as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as scientific materialism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, with evolution by natural selection.[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

What makes you say that the TOE has no rigorous mathematical proof of feasability.?

 

[Zosimus]

Are you talking about the theory of evolution.. or something else?

"While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of the Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel,[8] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of later theoretical developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift, for example.[9][10] In the United States, creationists often use the term "Darwinism" as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as scientific materialism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, with evolution by natural selection.[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

What makes you say that the TOE has no rigorous mathematical proof of feasability.?

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source on anything.

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. Its original formulation is provided in the first edition of On the Origin of Species in 1859. This entry first formulates ‘Darwin's Darwinism’ in terms of five philosophically distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. Both Darwin and his critics recognized that his approach to evolution was distinctive on each of these topics, and it remains true that, though Darwinism has developed in many ways unforeseen by Darwin, its proponents and critics continue to differentiate it from other approaches in evolutionary biology by focusing on these themes. This point is illustrated in the second half of the entry by looking at current debates in the philosophy of evolutionary biology on these five themes.

=======================================
Do you believe that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is using the term "Darwinism" perforatively?

Darwinism proclaims that all life as we know it comes from the simple mechanisms of chance, natural selection, reproduction, and time. Most modern Darwinists (hereinafter "neo-Darwinists") are also philosophical naturalists—they proclaim that knowledge of Darwinism makes the need for God as a mover in the cause of life an unnecessary postulate. Life arose spontaneously, through some as-yet-undiscovered method, and the pillars of Darwinism has done the rest.

Yet one questions whether spontaneous generation of life can be rigorously demonstrated to be feasible. A simple look at a few published articles show that science is far from a consensus on how or even where life originated. Some articles postulate outer space as the best location. When I went to school, I was assured that life originated in clay patches in shallow seas. Most current articles say that life may have originated around volcanic vents. What we have is not a theory but rampant speculation.

Of course, some will say that Darwinism itself does not take up the topic of how life originated. It does not rule out, for example, the existence of some Creator or even aliens seeding life throughout the universe. However, this is facetious. If one postulates an intelligent designer (the Christian God, for example) then Darwinism becomes unnecessary. God could create anything he wants in any way he chooses in blatant disregard of every rule of physics.

Equally so, Darwinism must postulate that one and only one incidence of spontaneous life generation occurred. If we postulate 2 or more, immediately Darwinism becomes unable to say that all life shares a common ancestor. So the task for neo-Darwinists is to demonstrate that it is mathematically feasable that life arose once and only once in some specific place and at one specific time.

Yet what we often find is rampant speculation, perhaps fueled by the fact that almost nothing is known about primordial seas. Thus, one is free from the inconvenient problem of data that prevent one from postulating whatever one pleases. The fact that the speculation cannot be disproved by the data (there are none) is an advantage and the simple claim that it might have happened that way is greated with warm applause from other neo-Darwinist believers.

Count me among the skeptics.