Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

sethgodin.typepad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#41

Post by kirse »

KirinDave wrote: post #40
kirse wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the means of getting there? Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define what the pi…

The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is…

The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action.

Neither can God.

Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that cannot be empirically observed).

As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact.

But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith, I'm more content believing that the correct picture/end result is that these complex systems had a designer.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#42

Post by KirinDave »

kirse wrote: post #41
KirinDave wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma, debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence. If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our modern world is…

The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that cannot be empirically observed). As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will acc…

I feel bad for you because you've been programmed to be so radically inconsistent. You act like evolution was made up just to weaken the theistic position, but it wasn't. The model of evolution emerged from a host of speciation models that existed, ranging from "God made it that way 500 years ago" to complex and absurdly complex secular models involving generative forces.

History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct. Another great example is Atoms. For a long time, people thought that an atomic model of matter wasn't science because you couldn't directly observe such tiny things. Turns out that was wrong. Then along comes quantum mechanics, and now we're on even more bizarre and even thinner ice trying to map out effects which observation actually destroys.

And yet we're making progress, just like we have in Biology. The ONLY difference that is relevant to our discussion between quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory is that your holy text has something to say about one and not the other.

You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion. You're making a special exception for Evolution that no other scientific theory has to make it through just because your religion tells you to.

As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as fact.

No you won't. When I was younger I had heated debates that ended with, "As soon as we can see evidence of flagellum evoling I will accept [evolution] as fact." They didn't, and you won't. You will move the goalpost, draw new false dichotomies, and struggle to preserve your world-view.

But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're assigning our faith

Quite the opposite. You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion. Evolution is a useful model for biology, nothing more. If we can provide a better model with excellent evidence involving invisible winged greyhounds, I think that'd be way more entertaining.

You've admitted your position is based in faith, and that's why all the logic, evidence, and reason that I can muster cannot unseat your position. Logic, evidence and reason can only act on rational people, and your faith is–at its core–inherently irrational.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#43

Post by kirse »

KirinDave wrote: post #42
kirse wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action. Neither can God. Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that cannot be empirically observed). As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will acc…

I feel bad for you because you've been programmed to be so radically inconsistent. You act like evolution was made up just to weaken the theistic position, but it wasn't. The model of evolution emerged from a host of speciation models that existed, ranging from "God made it that way 500 years ago" to complex and absurdly complex secular models involving generative forces. History is full of examples where a model eme…

-- History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data and turned out to be correct.

History is also full of even more examples of models that have turned out to be incorrect. Historical examples of validity have no bearing on the independent validity of Macro-Evolution. And you're trying to lecture me on basic logic and rationality?

-- You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the conclusion.

Right, and you do the exact same thing when you take evidence that indicates complex functioning systems have a designer and simply throw it out the window in favor of your own model. This argument goes nowhere on both sides.

-- You will move the goalpost

No, I won't move the goalpost, because the goalpost is clearly defined as the empirical observability of Macro-Evolution, in the same way that heliocentricity was proven by its empirical observability. There is nothing farther you can go than empirically observing a fully new type of life come from one another. Again, stop trying to extrapolate your historical experiences with others into an independent case. I will be firmly convinced once I see a creature (a fish?) evolve into a cat or some other creature.

-- You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion.

Tell me then, how do you bridge the gap of believing that something exists when in fact it cannot be empirically observed? However you may label it, the belief in anything that cannot be empirically observed is never fully grounded in rationality, but an intuitive feeling that it is the truth.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#44

Post by jonny_noog »

KirinDave wrote: post #27
kirse wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in low-oxygen conditions: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't somethin…

"E. coli is still E. coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate." Except that one of the defining factors of E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. But hey, I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly good dodge. And you've also neatly stepped aside the massive genetic evidence of evolution. The fact that we have specific genetic patterns that are clearly shared with proposed precursor species is pretty hard to…

And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems, so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this vastly simplify the process?

I personally don't wish to add any power to the whole ID "debate". But the point you raise is one that I have often thought about myself. It's only that certain groups need to hold to the bible as the "inerrant word of God" (the earth is ~5000 years old, dinosaurs did not exist and obviously fossils were planted by God to test our faith, Adam was created first and then Eve from his rib bone etc.) that makes them fail to realise exactly this: Evolution could fit into their world view (slightly adjusted) as the mechanism put in place by their "intelligent designer".

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#45

Post by wheels »

mixmax wrote: post #19
mynameishere wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture Fact: Not "always". For the most part, religious people are oblivious to science, and only highly visible matters like heliocentricity (gravity, less so) become contentious. It's clear that he's making an imperfect metaphor and the details aren't especially important. That is, are you marketing evolution? Even the sm…

I'm not disagreeing with his central thesis, I'm just saying that it is undermined tremendously by his bad examples. And since he is in marketing he should know better.

A good marketing campaign is rarely deterred by facts.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#46

Post by [deleted] »

smwhreyebelong wrote: post #24
mixmax wrote: post #13

Seth should pick his examples more carefully, he obviously doesn't know anything about science. ----------- Seth: They say he discovered gravity. Nonsense. He just named it. Fact: He didn't discover gravity, and has never been accredited for doing so. The famous story of Gallileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa to measure gravity happened in the 17'th century, so obviously the idea of gravity was around for a w…

Agreed. Momentum might have been a better concept to use here than gravity: Use something that a lot of people already believe in than trying to change their belief completely. In other words, push the ball that's already in motion than trying to stop it and move in the opposite direction.

[deleted]

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#48

Post by petercooper »

mattmaroon wrote: post #23
PStamatiou wrote: post #16

I might be going on a limb here but do we really need to have every single Seth Godin post on Hacker News? Every few days there's a new one that somehow reaches the top, doesn't offer much value and even has significant issues (like this one).. I didn't really think this comment through but I know I have become slightly annoyed with his posts flooding HN as of late.

Totally agree. Most of his posts are useless. His total lack of physics knowledge aside, most of his stuff doesn't even tell me how to market better.

His posts are, however, often insightful and usually feature a fresh observation.

While these rarely give you step 1 - do this, step 2 - do that type advice, enough insights, when compiled together, can help you come up with ideas and inspire insights of your own.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#49

Post by gjm11 »

mynameishere wrote: post #18
mixmax wrote: post #13

Seth should pick his examples more carefully, he obviously doesn't know anything about science. ----------- Seth: They say he discovered gravity. Nonsense. He just named it. Fact: He didn't discover gravity, and has never been accredited for doing so. The famous story of Gallileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa to measure gravity happened in the 17'th century, so obviously the idea of gravity was around for a w…

Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture Fact: Not "always". For the most part, religious people are oblivious to science, and only highly visible matters like heliocentricity (gravity, less so) become contentious. It's clear that he's making an imperfect metaphor and the details aren't especially important. That is, are you marketing evolution? Even the sm…

1. There's a broad space between "because it's fashionable" and "because they followed through all the relevant citations". It seems to me that "the smart lads", if you mean anything sensible by that, occupy a point of that space that's somewhere near "because they looked to see what people who show genuine signs of expertise tend to think". Which, given that science is a field in which expertise is actually possible and somewhat assessable, seems to me quite different from "because it's fashionable".

2. The full title of the "Origin of Species"? What, you mean the fact that (gasp) it has the words "favoured races" in it? Well, I suppose that someone who doesn't have any clue what Darwin meant by that might be worried that it's talking about human "races", but ignorance and stupidity are always with us.

Re: Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

#50

Post by KirinDave »

jonny_noog wrote: post #44
KirinDave wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"E. coli is still E. coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate." Except that one of the defining factors of E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. But hey, I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly good dodge. And you've also neatly stepped aside the massive genetic evidence of evolution. The fact that we have specific genetic patterns that are clearly shared with proposed precursor species is pretty hard to…

And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems, so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this vastly simplify the process? I personally don't wish to add any power to the whole ID "debate". But the point you raise is…

Right.

What you have to understand is that ID isn't really what most of the vigorous ID proponents are really arguing for. What they're really arguing for is a literal interpretation of the english transliteration of the Bible, including a That's why it's not enough to get the "whys" for an unverifiable non-scientific explanation like ID. The "Whats" are also equally important to these people. Evolution cannot be accepted because Evolution requires time on a scale that rejects a biblically literal timescale.

Post reply on HN