Tomm Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Is it understandable that I can subscribe to something but retain an apprehension of its certitude? It sounds like you recognise this for apples not being cyanide (haha) but can you possibly apply the same to evolution?Absolutely. But I work in a profession (medicine) where "proof" is regarded as anything with a p value* less than 0.05 (I.e. 5%). If the probability of your results occurring randomly is less than 5%, you've got proof. So when you're talking in minutiae of 0.00001% I can't accept that as anything less than proof. If you took your logic I don't think there would be any medical progress, our understanding would never change. On the "absolute certainty of evolution" point I actually do agree with you, but I can't help but think that my view is realistic while yours is a bit... pedantic No offence meant by that of course, I consider pedantry a virtue in many cases!*p value - the probability of such a result or a more extreme result occurring if the null hypothesis (no correlation) is assumed to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) Absolutely. But I work in a profession (medicine) where "proof" is regarded as anything with a p value* less than 0.05 (I.e. 5%). If the probability of your results occurring randomly is less than 5%, you've got proof. So when you're talking in minutiae of 0.00001% I can't accept that as anything less than proof. If you took your logic I don't think there would be any medical progress, our understanding would never change. On the "absolute certainty of evolution" point I actually do agree with you, but I can't help but think that my view is realistic while yours is a bit... pedantic No offence meant by that of course, I consider pedantry a virtue in many cases!*p value - the probability of such a result or a more extreme result occurring if the null hypothesis (no correlation) is assumed to be true.None taken I can see why you would call this pedantry but I feel it antidotal. I accept your definition of fact (probably because it's the same as mine) but I believe fact to have taken on an absolute meaning for most people to the point of promoting dogma. "Scientific fact is divine knowledge!" or something like that. I really feel that science suffers the same overextended faith that religion so often does.Anyhow, I do disagree that you wouldn't get anything done on my basis because I think that I am saying the same as you are. I would choose the path that fell under a set likelihood (like 95%). However, I think maintaining some reservation to promote a readiness for an alternative view would actually aid medical progress if something were to change. You can still be reserved in mind whilst acting on the 95% in reality. But we can close our availability to new, potentially better ideas, if we decide that the current one is 'definitely' right.Isn't it true that differing experiments that contradict one another can both carry high statistical likelihoods in their respective positions? Such is the issue of science.I want to mention again that I do the things I am critical in others for. However, I don't see this as a reason not to mention those things. Edited October 19, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Isn't it true that differing experiments that contradict one another can both carry high statistical likelihoods in their respective positions? Such is the issue of science.Absolutely. Particularly as it only takes a 5% (1 in 20) fluke chance and you've got "proof" of something. Luckily people within research do accept this though and a p value of 0.0499 will always be interpreted with an air of caution. And now we're getting into varying degrees of "proof" and it all gets a bit complicated and hazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 complicated and hazy definitely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Lad Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Can you appreciate though that individuals of past probably felt similar to yourself with regard to other ideas that have now been discarded?Again, you cannot compare the misconceptions of the past and the methods at which they arrived at their conclusions with evolution as it stands today and the body of evidence that supports it. You know nothing about evolution, let alone the proof we have for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) Again, you cannot compare the misconceptions of the past and the methods at which they arrived at their conclusions with evolution as it stands today and the body of evidence that supports it. You know nothing about evolution, let alone the proof we have for it.Yes, I understand things are different and certainly better regarding our ability to gain knowledge but it doesn't change our being limited subjects in a vastly complex existence. There are a multitude of additional affective factors to consider beyond just saying that our methods are great, theirs were bad. If you want to be absolutely confident in your views, be my guest. Have you still not understood that I subscribe to evolution though? And actually I have studied some evolution. No, I'm not an expert. Are you? Is your signature directed at me? Yes you are antagonistic but unfortunately, if it is meant for me, I sincerely enjoy this type of debate/discussion so I'm happy for the excuse to write something as I sorely lack it away from the forum. Edited October 20, 2009 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.