Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, Evolution " Is just a theory". I think this is formally called a fallacy of equivocation.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

Example: "It is false to claim feathers are lighter than canon balls, because a black bird's feather reflects much less light than a canon ball, and actually appears much darker."

 

[dkotschessaa]

The best way to print from my laptop:
My phone connects fine to my wifi, my laptop does not (although it's fine elsewhere)
My phone serves as an access point to my laptop
My laptop prints better with google cloud print than on the LAN, so I sent the document through my phone, to the cloud
which comes back through the cloud to my LAN which sends it to my printer
Which is 2 feet away from where I am printing.

 

[rootone]

Use a USB cable?, but then you might not have one with the right connector at both ends.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Use a USB cable?, but then you might not have one with the right connector at both ends.

Indeed, the meaning of the word "universal" seems to have been lost on all the people making USB cables.

 

[WWGD]

Indeed, the meaning of the word "universal" seems to have been lost on all the people making USB cables.

How about wireless printing?

 

[WWGD]

Example: "It is false to claim feathers are lighter than canon balls, because a black bird's feather reflects much less light than a canon ball, and actually appears much darker."

Yes, and in this case it is first used colloquially, as in everyday language and then it is used in its more formal way. So I think it does fall into that category of equivocation. Like one I hear or read a while back: "My Achilles heel is not my Achilles heel" , with the first one used figuratively and the second one used literally, as in the body part. Without explanation, it seems like a contradiction: A is not A..

 

[Ibix]

There seems to me to be a general problem with the clash between technical and colloquial language. It just hits science hard because there are substantial lobbies with little interest in reality - so evolution is "just a theory" and "chemicals are bad for you".

I once saw a "man in the street interview" with someone who didn't want to eat GM products because they have genes in.

 

[WWGD]

There seems to me to be a general problem with the clash between technical and colloquial language. It just hits science hard because there are substantial lobbies with little interest in reality - so evolution is "just a theory" and "chemicals are bad for you".

I once saw a "man in the street interview" with someone who didn't want to eat GM products because they have genes in.

And it becomes confusing because sometimes people switch in their usage between technical and colloquial within the same conversation, but they don't make it clear in what sense they are using their words, in the informal sense or in a formal/rigorous sense. It can become really confusing. It is an art to navigate between the two, and few are good at it.

 

[fresh_42]

I once saw a "man in the street interview" with someone who didn't want to eat GM products because they have genes in.

Exactly. Real clean food only comes out of plants!

 

[dkotschessaa]

There seems to me to be a general problem with the clash between technical and colloquial language. It just hits science hard because there are substantial lobbies with little interest in reality - so evolution is "just a theory" and "chemicals are bad for you".

I once saw a "man in the street interview" with someone who didn't want to eat GM products because they have genes in.

Not to mention well intentioned but misguided advice like "don't eat something if you can't pronounce the ingredients!"

 

[fresh_42]

And it becomes confusing because sometimes people switch in their usage between technical and colloquial within the same conversation, but they don't make it clear in what sense they are using their words, in the informal sense or in a formal/rigorous sense. It can become really confusing. It is an art to navigate between the two, and few are good at it.

I always got to hold on me when I hear the words: almost always, or if they conclude $(A⇒B)⇒(\bar{A} ⇒ \bar{B})$, which is very popular among politicians. The tiny word 'smooth' is difficult to hear, as well, at least to me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, and in this case it is first used colloquially, as in everyday language and then it is used in its more formal way. So I think it does fall into that category of equivocation. Like one I hear or read a while back: "My Achilles heel is not my Achilles heel" , with the first one used figuratively and the second one used literally, as in the body part. Without explanation, it seems like a contradiction: A is not A..

I disagree. People who say, "Evolution is just a theory," aren't jumping from one definition to another, from rigorous to casual. They actually just don't have a good rigorous definition at their disposal.

For my money, Karl Popper gave the first rigorous parameters for what should be considered a theory:

Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:[5]

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

Popper summarized these statements by saying that the central criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its "falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."[5] Echoing this,Stephen Hawking states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He also discusses the "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories, which is a necessary consequence of inductive logic, and that "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."[42]

 

[dkotschessaa]

I always got to hold on me when I hear the words: almost always, or if they conclude $(A⇒B)⇒(\bar{A} ⇒ \bar{B})$, which is very popular among politicians.

Ah yes, the old modus bonehead. (In contrapositive form).

 

[fresh_42]

For my money, Karl Popper gave the first rigorous parameters for what should be considered a theory:

Unfortunately Sir Charles isn't very popular.

 

[Ibix]

Not to mention well intentioned but misguided advice like "don't eat something if you can't pronounce the ingredients!"

I know some people who need to see this graphic...

 

[Ibix]

I always got to hold on me when I hear the words: almost always, or if they conclude $(A⇒B)⇒(\bar{A} ⇒ \bar{B})$, which is very popular among politicians.

Related: the Thatcherite Syllogism:

1. Something must be done.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, this must be done.

 

[fresh_42]

Here there exist only and exact three arguments on the side of administration employees:
1. If that everybody would do, ...
2. We've always done it this way ...
3. I have my rules. Alternatively: There is a sign which says it.
It's amazing what people find in order to avoid thinking on their own.

 

[dlgoff]

Prepare for very gentle butt whoopings!

This may be a little too graphic for the mentors. If so, please remove with my apologies.
Anyway, my daughter posted this on her schools FB page for the not so gentle butt whoopings.

 

[WWGD]

I disagree. People who say, "Evolution is just a theory," aren't jumping from one definition to another, from rigorous to casual. They actually just don't have a good rigorous definition at their disposal.

<Snip>:

Of course, I was referring to the fact that even when people are being honest, it can be confusing to understand them, because they may be switching in-and-out between informal and formal talking modes. Of course, when someone is being dishonest, all bets are off.

 

[WWGD]

Here there exist only and exact three arguments on the side of administration employees:
1. If that everybody would do, ...
2. We've always done it this way ...
3. I have my rules. Alternatively: There is a sign which says it.
It's amazing what people find in order to avoid thinking on their own.

That may just be the transactional-type leadership which may be in its last breaths in the modern world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_leadership. EDIT: Although there are combinations of transactional and transformational.

 

[DiracPool]

Why do fat, old, and ugly people laugh a lot? Is it because they are so happy being fat, old, and ugly? I think not. I think by laughing a lot they are trying to distract you from noticing that they are fat, old, or ugly

 

[WWGD]

Why do fat, old, and ugly people laugh a lot? Is it because they are so happy being fat, old, and ugly? I think not. I think by laughing a lot they are trying to distract you from noticing that they are fat, old, or ugly

Are you referring to people who are all three? Where can you find em/ how do you run into so many of them?

 

[rootone]

It's not unknown for thin young pretty people to laugh a lot as well.

 

[WWGD]

It's not unknown for thin young pretty people to laugh a lot as well.

Except for bulimic models, I guess.

 

[fresh_42]

Except for bulimic models, I guess.

Nope. Even they can laugh a lot. Experienced it.

 

[WWGD]

Nope. Even they can laugh a lot. Experienced it.

Guess you hang out with the hip crowd; I am more of a loner, I guess.

 

[fresh_42]

Guess you hang out with the hip crowd; I am more of a loner, I guess.

Nope. I once had a friend in a clinic where they treated eating disorders. It wasn't hip, just kind of normal. (If you knew my actual time right now ... guess I'm a loner, too.)

 

[WWGD]

Nope. I once had a friend in a clinic where they treated eating disorders. It wasn't hip, just kind of normal. (If you knew my actual time right now ... guess I'm a loner, too.)

Maybe you're right, there may be more of those around than one suspects. I guess in many countries being into science and Math may make you an outsider.

 

[dlgoff]

guess I'm a loner, too.

Which may not be a BAD thing...

 

[WWGD]

Which may not be a BAD thing...

Maybe we are all loners, here in PF -- the largest community of loners around.

 

[dlgoff]

Maybe we are all loners, here in PF -- the largest community of loners around.

Thank goodness for PF!

 

[fresh_42]

Thank goodness for PF!

What really is amazing are our actual physical locations. Talking simultaneously to people literally around the globe, sharing basically the same thoughts, that's something my grandma wouldn't have believed. No way.

 

[DiracPool]

Are you referring to people who are all three? Where can you find em/ how do you run into so many of them?

Yes, I am talking about my wife and my two mistresses: one is fat, one is old, and one is ugly.

And, to answer your second question, I didn't find them, somehow, tragically, they found me

 

[dlgoff]

What really is amazing are our actual physical locations. Talking simultaneously to people literally around the globe, sharing basically the same thoughts, that's something my grandma wouldn't have believed. No way.

Sometimes it's hard for me to believe. Science SHOULD bring the world together; IMO.

 

[WWGD]

Yes, I am talking about my wife and my two mistresses: one is fat, one is old, and one is ugly.

<Snip>

Maybe they started laughing when they saw what each other looked like?