Philosophy of Science vs Evolution

[aaronwright23]

Basic Question being presented here: does the evolutionary theory hold its ground against the standards of philosophical criticisms? Do creationist theories hold up against the same philosophical standards?
Here is some basic information regarding hypothesis construction; and, what is, or isn't a good theory/hypothesis -->
• A good hypothesis has to be testable and able to be reproduced (golden rule).
• Any hypothesis has to be falsifiable
--------> (Very important, many of Freud's theories fail this portion and have therefore been regarded as "un-scientific")
• A hypothesis that has fruitfulness (predicts a new phenomenon) is considered better than those that don’t.
• Scope: the greater amount of phenomenon that you can predict the wider the scope and the better it is.
• Simplicity: the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions is better
• Conservatism: if you cohere with previous hypotheses then its more acceptable

I'm curious to see what you guys think about this. :shrug: Please remember this is just a discussion, not a flame war. Please, do your best to avoid Ad-Hominem arguments...calling someone dumb isn't logical...at all:sy:.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

lol...omg..u serious dude?Are you trying to impress someone with this?

I feel like im in INTEGRATED SCIENCE all over again...

 

[AP2k]

Omfg....this thread.
If you're a creationist just end your life. There is no reason anyone outside of Darfur should have such a lack of basic science comprehension.

 

[Arcaneos510X]

the grand unified theroy of the universe has already been published and states that before the big bang there was no time and no time for a god to exist but these are the rules of phyics and i have no doubt that the big bang created the universe but i belive got created the laws for whitch it to be created. and if people cant understand this then do some research its quite fasinating !

 

[Germanicus]

I'm just gonna avoid this one; I'll say bad things if I don't. Have fun, children. Don't maul each other too terribly.

 

[soulless uchiha]

*sigh* this thread again....*gets popcorn*

 

[Vinnie]

*sigh* this thread again....*gets popcorn*

First this is a popcorn worthy thread... sit back and watch it.

Second you are obviously correct arronwright23. What you say is known most commonly as the foundation method and it is used by many philosophers and theoretical scientists. This is one of the core elements to a metaphysical argument "In order to prove something is real you must not only be able to prove its existence but be able to disprove its nonexistence."

If I'm going to prove water is wet I must not only have evidence that water is wet but also that it is not dry, because if I can prove one and not the other then my argument makes no sense.

 

[Hipster Madara]

More evolution threads? SMH

 

[Chaoz]

i believe in both and physics and the "laws" were created by humans with human knowledge, seeing as humanity doesnt have infinite wisdom and intellect in all things known and unknown(since they wouldnt be unknown lol) we can't make conclusive statements. everything humans do is fallible and can result in error.
but thats why its called faith and belief after something you cant prove or disprove

 

[ImmaculateShadow]

Basic Question being presented here: does the evolutionary theory hold its ground against the standards of philosophical criticisms? Do creationist theories hold up against the same philosophical standards?
Here is some basic information regarding hypothesis construction; and, what is, or isn't a good theory/hypothesis -->
• A good hypothesis has to be testable and able to be reproduced (golden rule).
• Any hypothesis has to be falsifiable
--------> (Very important, many of Freud's theories fail this portion and have therefore been regarded as "un-scientific")
• A hypothesis that has fruitfulness (predicts a new phenomenon) is considered better than those that don’t.
• Scope: the greater amount of phenomenon that you can predict the wider the scope and the better it is.
• Simplicity: the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions is better
• Conservatism: if you cohere with previous hypotheses then its more acceptable

I'm curious to see what you guys think about this. :shrug: Please remember this is just a discussion, not a flame war. Please, do your best to avoid Ad-Hominem arguments...calling someone dumb isn't logical...at all:sy:.

Creationism from Religion is illogical within this framework because it comes to the conclusion before the evidence is considered and then ignores evidence to the contrary.

Ex: Noah, from the book of Genesis, held all of the plenum of animals necessary to carry on life after a flood. A flood which had covered all the ground on the earth for over a months time [how long exactly? depends on which of the two versions you read from the Bible]. Not knowing how this happened does not negate the fact that it did happen. Finding evidence to the contrary of the story simply means that the evidence is wrong, tampered with or skewed. We just need to find the evidence for the conclusion.

Evolutionary theory is the most extensive and inclusive scientific theory. It encompasses subjects like Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Zoology, Morphology, Climatology, Paleontology & Geology just to name a few. All of the conclusions made about Evolution come from facts, testing, physical evidence & medical research. All of it peer reviewed.

Ex:
[video=youtube_share;zi8FfMBYCkk]http://youtu.be/zi8FfMBYCkk[/video]

If you, or any one else, wish to bring some thing to the table that is creationist in nature I would be more than happy to point out it's flaws — if it has any. Science? Same deal.

Be for warned though I'm a former Fundamentalist Christian & a former Atheist.

 

[ZK]

First this is a popcorn worthy thread... sit back and watch it.

Second you are obviously correct arronwright23. What you say is known most commonly as the foundation method and it is used by many philosophers and theoretical scientists. This is one of the core elements to a metaphysical argument "In order to prove something is real you must not only be able to prove its existence but be able to disprove its nonexistence."

If I'm going to prove water is wet I must not only have evidence that water is wet but also that it is not dry, because if I can prove one and not the other then my argument makes no sense.

Lol, sorry, I misread this as an 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' for a second xd

 

[ghost nappa]

The first thing you have to know when dealing with evolution is that it's an extremely broad term that can mean many things. Scientificaly, it's divided into microevolution and macroevolution.

Micro is the study of organisms as they change from generation to generation, and the theory acreddited to Darwin. This is largely legitimate science, and the minor changes that occur play an important role in the survival of species over the years.

Macroevolution, aka the grand theory, is the theory that all life is related from an original organism that spontaneously generated from a primordial puddle of turtle soup. This part of evolution violates proper scientific practice in so many ways. As mentioned, the whole theory relies on the disproven theory of spontaneous generation for life to even exist in the first place. While evolution works fine for adapting existing features, generating whole organs and systems that work effectively based on sheer luck is ludicrus. Creatures with partial organ systems don't survive to pass genes. There are several genetic barriers that can't be jumped by luck alone. One of them is the transition from celular to multicellular. My personal favorite is the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. You basically need an organism to develop an entire male reproductive system (incredibly complicated passing the genetic code via sperm), and another organism in the same area to develop a female reproductive system (part to recieve and translate the sperm, part to develop, nurture and create offspring) and they both know what to do with each other. To top it off, the fossil records are incredibly inconsistent (and the years are subjective to how the scientist chooses to do the math anyways) with new generations of creatures occasionally appearing with seemingly no relatives.

 

[Vinnie]

Lol, sorry, I misread this as an 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' for a second xd

Don't worry about it I misread stuff on NB so much, rereading it myself if I only read the first two sentences I would immediately start disagreeing.