Misconceptions about evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

171–172 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#171

Post by eeperson » Tue, Oct 15, 2013, 4:32 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #170

eeperson wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is a made up number. So what? It's not made up out of thin air though. Wait what? Yes you can assign a probability to everything, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, but you can do it. I hope that is not how you prove all of your math problems. I'm sorry I must not have been clear in my previous post. I did not mean that you personally were moving the goalposts. I meant that your hypothetical person who believe…

You are completely missing the point of the Bayesian interpretation of probability and I'm not really sure how to explain it any better. Let's say you have to bet money on whether or not P=NP will be proven next year. You get to choose the odds you are willing to take it at, and you want to do it so that you will win the most amount of money on average . The on average is the important part. So if you say you are 99%…

It sounds like we are talking past each other slightly. It sounds like you are trying to produce the probability that a proof is found that P=NP in a given year. However, I'm asking for the probability that ultimately P=NP. What would you average that over? What would your input data be?

I understand that people work up all sorts of heuristics for their daily lives, but that doesn't constitute scientific proof. There still just heuristics.

> Because the testable claims are all that's left, since everything else has long since been proven to be false

How can testable claims be all that's left. If it's testable then it can be proven or disproven. Did you mean untestable?

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#172

Post by eeperson » Wed, Oct 16, 2013, 12:49 AM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #169

eeperson wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make sense. Once you have clear evidence of something, it is no longer a hypothesis. You can start with any hypothesis you want. Of course if you expect something to be treated as scientific fact you need clear evidence. Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts.

I didn't say evidence of the hypothesis, I said "evidence that the hypothesis is WARRANTED" which is a very big difference. If apples don't fall from trees and matter is not attracted to other matter then the gravity hypothesis has no evidence for it to even be considered! We see apples fall and planets orbit and matter attracting other matter and so we think, there must be something there! So we investigate and only…

If a hypothesis doesn't contradict the known facts, how do you determine if it is warranted?

You only require evidence if you expect others to believe the same thing. I'm not arguing that anyone should believe in any religion. I'm arguing that a scientist can hold religious beliefs without conflict.

> the scientific body of knowledge, both theoretical and experimental, shows no evidence and no sign of a creator outside of humans projecting their own desires.

This seems like it would strongly depend on who you ask. I'm not even sure how you would come up with a criteria for this (although maybe that is just limitations in my own imagination).

Post reply on HN