Head_case
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Posts
- 606
- Likes
- 14
Quote:
Lol. ADHD?
This premise is certainly false. Read again - the reasoning for this premise remains unsound, because it confuses basic observation and trades on a syllogism, defining 'change' or 'mutation' as 'evidence of evolutionary theory':
Quote:
Thus:
Quote:
trades on a syllogism: 'change' and 'mutation' does not equate to 'evolve'.
This is elementary philosophy: you cannot cite the word' 'evolve' in a premise, to demonstrate 'evolutionary theory' as having utility. All you are doing, is engaging in a syllogistic fallacy.
Quote:
You might need to respect Jonathan and let him answer his own philosophical problems associated with theories of falsifiability; you have your own to answer in terms of finding a way out of the syllogistic fallacy with respect to developing 'evolutionary theory' as a valid enterprise with a robust foundation
Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif But this is precisely where a pragmatic scientific epistemology succeeds. We accept that Evolution has some utility because it has observable predictive value. We can posit that bacteria will evolve antibiotic resistance based on the theory of natural selection. |
Lol. ADHD?
This premise is certainly false. Read again - the reasoning for this premise remains unsound, because it confuses basic observation and trades on a syllogism, defining 'change' or 'mutation' as 'evidence of evolutionary theory':
Quote:
You cite this as evidence of evolution, yet we have not defined the limits of this 'word' 'evolution. Let me guard against 'defining evolution' into being through a syllogism or through linguistic substitution then: In a bacterium, there is an organelle called a 'plasmid'. Plasmids are present in all bacteria; their function of which, is to exchange genetic material with other bacteria. Biologists use the word 'evolve' very loosely here, and one of the problems about having a weak metaphysical basis for their science, is that it imputes circular thinking or syllogistic type reasoning, which is indefensible. We cannot use the word 'evolve' or 'evolution' to signify 'change'. Otherwise your $.01 will be proof of evolution in your pocket. (j/k btw). We observe change i.e. metamorphosis, puberty - but to name two processes: neither are examples of evolution. The exchange of verbal information between male and female Head-Fi.org users - is this 'evolution'? What about the exchange of genetic material? ... In both cases; neither examples demonstrate 'evolution'. The first, is called 'communication'; the latter, is called sexual reproduction. Bacterial plasmid activity function as exchanges: the fact that bacteria can 'mutate' by exchanging plasmid activity; plasmid activity has been observed as a functional part of the bacterial organelles in all bacteria; revision of susceptibility of one's resistance to things is not indicative of evolution. The bacteria change their resistance; of course they change! Being changes too; Being is always in flux! We change all the time: we do not call this 'evolution' in our own lifetimes. But does changing 'bacterial resistance' equate to changing the bacterial 'identity'? A more rigorous example of 'evolution' then needs to be sought. This is not it. In any event, 'mutation' signifying 'change', is insubstantial: the bacterium, remains ... a bacterium. It does not evolve, into a fish or a human. Bacterium: the principle of identity remains. When the principle of identity is violated, then you can consider 'evolution' to have taken place. If indeed, the conditions are such, that it 'evolves' for the better, and not 'evolves for the worse', as observed in 99% of all known mutations (in this case, 'evolutionary theory', is anti-empirical, and relies on that 1% chance for its propositions to become true). Firstly, you need to demonstrate that micro-evolution (small changes in identity) take place and are sufficient to give rise to a new identity. Secondly, you need to demonstrate, that these micro-evolutionary changes (no.8), when aggregated, can be postulated reasonably to extrapolation, so that we can get from fish to a man (condition no. 7) |
Thus:
Quote:
We can posit that bacteria will evolve antibiotic resistance based on the theory of natural selection. |
trades on a syllogism: 'change' and 'mutation' does not equate to 'evolve'.
This is elementary philosophy: you cannot cite the word' 'evolve' in a premise, to demonstrate 'evolutionary theory' as having utility. All you are doing, is engaging in a syllogistic fallacy.
Quote:
We can test that hypothesis, and find that the theory does accurately predict what happens. By contrast, Astology could not do better than random chance in making the same prediction (except insofar as the astrologer implicity relies on the scientific theories). |
You might need to respect Jonathan and let him answer his own philosophical problems associated with theories of falsifiability; you have your own to answer in terms of finding a way out of the syllogistic fallacy with respect to developing 'evolutionary theory' as a valid enterprise with a robust foundation