Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby Lomax on March 12th, 2017, 9:24 pm 

NoShips » March 13th, 2017, 2:21 am wrote:Hey, stop threatening me! Oh, you said "thread". Sorry. So was it the lagomorph with a candlestick in Pre-Cambrian strata or not?

I linked it. I mean, I linked "it". Erm, it's linked to the word "it" in my previous post. Go use your language module (mine is evidently failing me) and have a gander.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 12th, 2017, 9:27 pm 

Ok, to be serious.... although we have covered this before. Let the bowdlerizers rest...

On one theory of good scientific practice at least, the desideratum of wholesome science is bold conjectures and severe tests. The rabbit nonsense is not a severe test. I typed this last night, but it seems to have fallen afoul of Mary Whitehouse's scalpel.

"Hey, guess what, honey? We did not unearth a rabbit fossil during all our pre-Cambrian excavations this year. Unbelievable, eh?"

You call that a bold conjecture? My own theory predicts no sulphuric acid will be found in my fridge..

Gasp! Just survived another severe test!
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 12th, 2017, 9:29 pm 

Lomax » March 13th, 2017, 10:24 am wrote:
NoShips » March 13th, 2017, 2:21 am wrote:Hey, stop threatening me! Oh, you said "thread". Sorry. So was it the lagomorph with a candlestick in Pre-Cambrian strata or not?

I linked it. I mean, I linked "it". Erm, it's linked to the word "it" in my previous post. Go use your language module (mine is evidently failing me) and have a gander.



Oops, sorry dude. I'm not very computer savvy. Checking now....
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby Lomax on March 12th, 2017, 9:31 pm 

What relevance has boldness? Do Google Mary Whitehouse's birthplace, by the way...
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 12th, 2017, 9:32 pm 

Lomax » March 13th, 2017, 10:31 am wrote: Do Google Mary Whitehouse's birthplace, by the way...


Nuneaton? That explains her scrawny cheekbones.
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 12th, 2017, 9:35 pm 

Lomax » March 13th, 2017, 10:31 am wrote:What relevance has boldness?


Um, ok, my new theory predicts it will be cold in Alaska today. How's that for good science?
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby Lomax on March 12th, 2017, 9:40 pm 

NoShips » March 13th, 2017, 2:35 am wrote:
Lomax » March 13th, 2017, 10:31 am wrote:What relevance has boldness?


Um, ok, my new theory predicts it will be cold in Alaska today. How's that for good science?

It's a start. Your new theory is now, for practical purposes, falsifiable.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 12th, 2017, 9:44 pm 

Getting back to that "it"... Biowizard said:

"1- ET explains why homologous species have high DNA sequence similarity, and why that similarity is inversely proportional to the time since the species last experienced gene flow (interbreeding). 2- ET predicts that as more time passes, DNA similarity between related species decreases, even if they experience phenotypic convergence. 3- These statements are all falsifiable, because you can sample DNA from organisms and sequence it. Which we have done. And the results have falsified the null hypothesis, every time."


Several points to be made here. First is the ambiguity in the term "explanation".

1. Several explanations have been proposed for the Mary Celeste mystery.
2. The procession of the perihelion of Mercury remained an anomaly until Einstein explained it.

See? Which one are we using right now, Bio?

Next, how do we know which features are homologous? DNA evidence? Remember our little chat about circularity? Or is there any independent method of determining which traits are homologous?
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby Lomax on March 12th, 2017, 9:47 pm 

NoShips » March 13th, 2017, 2:44 am wrote:Several points to be made here. First is the ambiguity in the term "explanation".

1. Several explanations have been proposed for the Mary Celeste mystery.
2. The procession of the perihelion of Mercury remained an anomaly until Einstein explained it.

Obviously Biowizard can speak for himself if he wants to. But humour me: what is the difference between these two types of explanation? Do you mean to say that for (1) we will never know which explanation is correct?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 12th, 2017, 9:50 pm 

Lomax » March 13th, 2017, 10:47 am wrote:
NoShips » March 13th, 2017, 2:44 am wrote:Several points to be made here. First is the ambiguity in the term "explanation".

1. Several explanations have been proposed for the Mary Celeste mystery.
2. The procession of the perihelion of Mercury remained an anomaly until Einstein explained it.

Obviously Biowizard can speak for himself if he wants to. But humour me: what is the difference between these two types of explanation? Do you mean to say that for (1) we will never know which explanation is correct?



Yes, that's right, Lomax. The examination of "explanation" is one of my areas of *hic* interest. Is there such a thing as a "correct" explanation?

Q: Why do you rob banks?
Ans: Coz that's where the money is duh.
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 12th, 2017, 9:53 pm 

Why did Socrates die?

Explanation1: all men must die - a pessimist (see also Carl Hempel's covering law model. Tee hee)
Explanation2: he drank hemlock - a chemist
Explanation3: Dust ye are, and unto dust ye shall return - a poet
Explanation4: He corrupted the youth of Athens- the district attorney

Who's right?
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 12th, 2017, 10:04 pm 

You know, I almost get the impression Lomax (aka Cheekbones) is on my side... but far too nice to offend evolutionary biologists.

Leave that to me. Do you cook or write or something?
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby Braininvat on March 13th, 2017, 12:42 am 

NoShips » March 12th, 2017, 6:53 pm wrote:Why did Socrates die?

Explanation1: all men must die - a pessimist (see also Carl Hempel's covering law model. Tee hee)
Explanation2: he drank hemlock - a chemist
Explanation3: Dust ye are, and unto dust ye shall return - a poet
Explanation4: He corrupted the youth of Athens- the district attorney

Who's right?


Fallacy - assuming there can't be multiple domains of explanation. "Why" has multiple meanings. Causality is a web, not a chain. Etc. No one right answer?

George Eliot was also born around Nuneaton. A town known for its convents and cheekbones. And flossing, if I'm not mistaken. Both George and Mary were named Mary.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4824
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 13th, 2017, 12:49 am 

Braininvat » March 13th, 2017, 1:42 pm wrote:
Fallacy - assuming there can't be multiple domains of explanation. "Why" has multiple meanings. Causality is a web, not a chain. Etc. No one right answer?
.



Well, yes, old ckeekboneless pal, but if this goes on we may enter the Dantean realm of interpretation, and dare I say, hermeneutics. And then where will we be?

I stand by my position: There are two kinds of people in this world: Logical positivists and goddamn English professors
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 13th, 2017, 12:52 am 

Bah bah Braininavat, have you any exegesis?

*tee hee*

Yes, sir, yes sir, three idiographics full :-)

But we all know three means "gimme more, baby"
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 13th, 2017, 12:56 am 

Ok, seriously, Braininavat, when I'm told, as I often am, that ET offers the best explanation (no scare quotes) for um, erm, kinda everything, how am I supposed to understand this?

Q1: What is an explanation?
Q2: Alien nuts have explanations too (not a question, we grant)
Q3: What's better about ET explanations?
Q4: The God shite hypothesis can explain too. My point. No one has answered.
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Re: Chomsky and Evolutionary Theory

Postby NoShips on March 13th, 2017, 1:10 am 

"Although the original post is fairly long..." - Wolf

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=32607&p=318187#p318187
(Post #10)

"Here's impartial:

You are at an online philosophy forum, which has certain rules of discourse. One of them is not to post 6-8 short posts meandering around your lack of sobriety, personal issues, cajolery of others to get a rapid response, off-topic one-liners, etc. You weren't offensive, you were just undermining discourse. Posts removed. Get over it. " -PutnaminaBath

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=32605
(post 9)


sigh

Bartender!!

Hey Procrustes! You look hot. Mind if I sleep with you?
NoShips
Active Member
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: 07 Oct 2016


Previous

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests