Evolution Confusion

[Mavorpen]

As stated, I'm not entirely sure what this means.

...Okay? I'm not sure how I can help you with that. It's a fairly simply statement. What, specifically, is the problem?

I think I understand.

So if I want to make some claim A, the null hypothesis is not A?

In a very basic sense, yes. This ties back into Russel's Teapot, that analogy that you for some reason didn't understand, where at it's most basic level, the importance of the burden of proof is stressed. It makes no sense to expect or ask one to prove a negative if you have the burden of proof.

[Mavorpen]

Evolution is true, as St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated in the Summa.

"Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning."

General is OOC.

That post wasn't IC.

[The Saint James Islands]

The proper response to this statement happens to be contained within your own words

In a debate, in which two parties disagree, the proper "methodology" is as follows.

If I say A and my opponent disagrees, then I should support A with premises B and C, the premises being of the kind that my opponent is willing to accept. If my opponent does not agree that B and C, then I should support these premises with further premises D and E (for B) and F and G (for C), and keep going until one of the following is true:

1. My opponent accepts these premises and I am able to deduce the point of disagreement from those premises.
2. I reach an indemonstrable first premise that my opponent does not accept.

If 2 happens, one of two things must happen:

1. I can give a dialectical argument that my opponent actually presupposes the indemonstrable first premise.
2. The debate must end.

If my opponent disagrees that through any two points there runs a line, it will be difficult to have a geometrical debate.

Attempting to ram deductive reasoning into a field which operates in a fundamentally different manner is akin to denying that a line can be drawn through any two points. It’s difficult to have a scientific debate when one person refuses to debate in manner consistent with how science functions.

[Mega City 5]

In a very basic sense, yes. This ties back into Russel's Teapot, that analogy that you for some reason didn't understand, where at it's most basic level, the importance of the burden of proof is stressed. It makes no sense to expect or ask one to prove a negative if you have the burden of proof.

Ok. In that case, I'm simply going to deny that you have the null hypothesis. There is an explanandum to be explained, i.e., abstract thought.

"Abstract thought is produced by and reducible to purely physical processes" is not the null hypothesis.

Note, of course, that this doesn't prejudice the question in favor of my conclusion.

"Abstract thought is an incorporeal activity and relies upon an incorporeal principle," again, is not the null hypothesis.

By saying that your premise is the null hypothesis, you are prejudicing the question in favor of your own view.

[Immoren]

1. What's the place in the summa?

There used to be a paper mill.

[Mega City 5]

Attempting to ram deductive reasoning into a field which operates in a fundamentally different manner is akin to denying that a line can be drawn through any two points. It’s difficult to have a scientific debate when one person refuses to debate in manner consistent with how science functions.

Different "sciences" have different methodologies. I am perfectly aware of this. Aristotle makes this clear in the Posterior Analytics.

I don't necessarily require a deductive argument. Any syllogistic proof is fine.

[Mega City 5]

Actually, Mavorpen, come to think of it, I do vaguely remember the null hypothesis thing. Believe it or not, I did take biology courses as an undergraduate. Nothing special, just general education biology courses for non-majors as well as a lab for non-majors.

Bio lab reports. Bleh.

I remember how utterly unscientific those things actually were.

Basically, if I remember correctly, scientists don't understand how contradictions work.

So, let me suppose that my hypothesis is this:

"If I arrange the set up in such a way, the population of fruit flies will be affected in x, y and z ways."

I couldn't just tack on a "not" to the beginning of that for the null hypothesis. "It is not the case that..."

No. I was forced, contrary to all sound reasoning and logic, "...[they] will not be affected..."

Yeah. I remember having a really big problem with that.

[Mavorpen]

Ok. In that case, I'm simply going to deny that you have the null hypothesis.

You can do that. You're wrong, of course.

There is an explanandum to be explained, i.e., abstract thought.

Okay.

"Abstract thought is produced by and reducible to purely physical processes" is not the null hypothesis.

Actually, it is. The null hypothesis shifts depending upon the presence of an established hypothesis that has allowed for rejection. In this specific case, the null hypothesis would be that "abstract thought is NOT produced by and reducible to purely physical processes." However, the competing hypothesis has, as a result of experimentation that has been explained to you in this thread, given reason to reject that null hypothesis. So now you have a hypothesis that there is something else that produces abstract thought that is not physical and that it can't be reduced to purely physical processes. The null hypothesis is that there is no such non-physical cause and that it can be reduced to purely physical processes.

In other words: we have two hypotheses that are competing. Both claims have a null hypothesis. Only one of them has evidence that allows us to reject their null hypothesis. And that's ours. That doesn't change the fact that one hypothesis can be used as the null hypothesis as the other, as they're competing in a dichotomy. You could also deny that "Unicorns did not steal my socks" is not the null hypothesis, but all you're doing is arguing that it can also be used as a hypothesis with it's own null hypothesis, which doesn't' change the fact that it's also a null hypothesis.

"Abstract thought is an incorporeal activity and relies upon an incorporeal principle," again, is not the null hypothesis.

Yep.

By saying that your premise is the null hypothesis, you are prejudicing the question in favor of your own view.

No, I'm not.

[Mavorpen]

I remember how utterly unscientific those things actually were.

Words cannot describe how much I'd like to flame you right now for this absolutely idiotic statement.

Basically, if I remember correctly, scientists don't understand how contradictions work.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

So, let me suppose that my hypothesis is this:

"If I arrange the set up in such a way, the population of fruit flies will be affected in x, y and z ways."

I couldn't just tack on a "not" to the beginning of that for the null hypothesis. "It is not the case that..."

No. I was forced, contrary to all sound reasoning and logic, "...[they] will not be affected..."

Yeah. I remember having a really big problem with that.

Oh, is that it? You have a "problem" with it?

In that case, I am slightly less insulted, because this is nothing more than you once again being unable to grasp something that falls outside of your archaic understanding of the world.

[Mega City 5]

You can do that. You're wrong, of course.

And I should accept what you are saying because...? Your support is...?

Actually, it is. The null hypothesis shifts depending upon the presence of an established hypothesis that has allowed for rejection. In this specific case, the null hypothesis would be that "abstract thought is NOT produced by and reducible to purely physical processes." However, the competing hypothesis has, as a result of experimentation that has been explained to you in this thread, given reason to reject that null hypothesis.

I'd prefer to say "It is not the case that X."

At any rate, if I am reading this correctly, then you've basically agreed with me. Unless proof is given, the "null hypothesis" is "It is not the case that P," regardless of who is making the claim.

You'll say that evidence has been given for P, and I'll deny this, as previously explained.

In fact, now that I see it, you're arguing in a circle.

P is the null hypothesis.
Why?
Because reasons.
But I question those reasons.
What's your alternative?
I don't need to have one. You are the one making the claim.
I'm simply asserting the null hypothesis.

So now you have a hypothesis that there is something else that produces abstract thought that is not physical and that it can't be reduced to purely physical processes. The null hypothesis is that there is no such non-physical cause and that it can be reduced to purely physical processes.

I haven't actually argued for this.

In other words: we have two hypotheses that are competing.

False. That's why I talked about modalities earlier. There are actually three competing hypotheses, only one of which is an actual null hypothesis:

1. It is evident that thought is reducible to physical states.
2. It is evident that thought is not reducible to physical states.
3. It is not evident whether thought is or is not reducible to physical states.

3 is the actual null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis, epistemologically, must be equivalent to saying: "I don't know."

No, I'm not.

Except, you are. By saying "I am assuming the null hypothesis," you are saying: "I making the assumption which must be assumed until proven otherwise; I am assuming that I am right until you prove me wrong."

[Mega City 5]

Oh, is that it? You have a "problem" with it?

In that case, I am slightly less insulted, because this is nothing more than you once again being unable to grasp something that falls outside of your archaic understanding of the world.

Logic isn't archaic.

[Mavorpen]

And I should accept what you are saying because...? Your support is...?

I'm not sure why you would ask for support already provided in the post you're replying to.

I'd prefer to say "It is not the case that X."

I don't care. What you prefer has utterly no standing on what is the case in reality.

At any rate, if I am reading this correct, then you've basically agreed with me.

No, I haven't.

Unless proof is given, the "null hypothesis" is "It is not the case that P," regardless of who is making the claim.

I already explained this. You're free to disagree, but give me actual reasons WHY you disagree.

You'll say that evidence has been given for P, and I'll deny this, as previously explained.

Of course, you're free to deny reality. Do you have an actual reason to reject the null hypothesis or not?

In fact, now that I see it, you're arguing in a circle.

No, I'm not.

P is the null hypothesis.
Why?
Because reasons.
But I question those reasons.
What's your alternative?
I don't need to have one. You are the one making the claim.
I'm simply asserting the null hypothesis.

This isn't arguing in a circle. This is arguing from reality. The null hypothesis has a meaning and I've explained to you what that meaning is. You fail to understand what it is, and, rather than try to understand, you insist that I'm arguing in circles when in reality, I've already explained and substantiated my claim. Telling me you question the reasons is useless unless you actually understand the reasons. And, well, you don't.

I haven't actually argued for this.

Didn't say that you did.

False. That's why I talked about modalities earlier. There are actually three competing hypotheses, only one of which is an actual null hypothesis:

1. It is evident that thought is reducible to physical states.
2. It is evident that thought is not reducible to physical states.
3. It is not evident whether thought is or is not reducible to physical states.

3 is the actual null hypothesis.

No, 1 is the actual null hypothesis. It's the one that's we're testing against considering the other two have not given sufficient reasons to reject it.

Except, you are. By saying "I am assuming the null hypothesis," you are saying: "I making the assumption which must be assumed until proven otherwise."

Oh, I'm not saying it must be assumed. I'm saying that it must be assumed provided you want to maintain intellectual honesty within a scientific discussion.

[Mavorpen]

Oh, is that it? You have a "problem" with it?

In that case, I am slightly less insulted, because this is nothing more than you once again being unable to grasp something that falls outside of your archaic understanding of the world.

Logic isn't archaic.

If it leads to the shitty understanding of science you've displayed? It is.

Thankfully, I don't see a reason to consider your ignorance as being synonymous with "logic."

[Mega City 5]

Mavorpen, I am going to address you in brief:

In brief, what is your evidence for the claim that all forms of thought are reducible to physical states?

You'll deny that 3 is the actual null hypothesis, but I'll answer that 3 needs no evidence. 3 simply indicates that there's not sufficient evidence either way.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Oh, is that it? You have a "problem" with it?

In that case, I am slightly less insulted, because this is nothing more than you once again being unable to grasp something that falls outside of your archaic understanding of the world.

Logic isn't archaic.

Wouldn't you call the scientific method logical?

[Mavorpen]

In brief, what is your evidence for the claim that all forms of thought are reducible to physical states?

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

[Mega City 5]

Wouldn't you call the scientific method logical?

No. I wouldn't call it contrary to logic either. At its core, the scientific method just makes sense. If I think that physical reality works in a certain way, then it makes sense to go out and look. Aristotle figured that out well in advance of the modern scientists.

Formal logic simply tells us what forms of reasoning are and are not good.

My complaint isn't against scientists and the scientific method. My complaint is against the clear abuses made by the atheists who subscribe to a dogmatic scientism.

[Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ]

Evolution is true, as St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated in the Summa.

"Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning."

1. What's the place in the summa?

2. He likely has in mind things like the following:

A. Mules are begotten from horses and donkeys.
B. Maggots are (so goes the old hypothesis) produced from rotten meat.

His point is that their appearance was already contained in the active powers of their causes (whether be the active generative potencies of horses and donkeys, in the latter case, or the influence of the sun, in the latter case).

The place in the Summa is the Prima Pars, Article 73, Question 1, Reply 3. He does in the first case refer to the example of the mule, but he also makes specific mention in that quote 'perhaps even new species of animals'. Being without any physical evidence of pre-existing creatures, he does not say definitively that there is evolution. He does, however, say that it should occur.

[Mavorpen]

My complaint isn't against scientists and the scientific method. My complaint is against the clear abuses made by the atheists who subscribe to a dogmatic scientism.

So your complaint is essentially against nothing.

[Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ]

General is OOC.

That post wasn't IC.

In truth, it was not.

[Mega City 5]

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

How does it establish causality?

[Mavorpen]

That we've established the dependence of thought upon the physical state of the brain using experimental research that, by their structure that is fundamentally different from correlational research, establishes causality.

How does it establish causality?

Are you saying that it's possible to not be correlational and also not causal?

[Mega City 5]

The place in the Summa is the Prima Pars, Article 73, Question 1, Reply 3. He does in the first case refer to the example of the mule, but he also makes specific mention in that quote 'perhaps even new species of animals'. Being without any physical evidence of pre-existing creatures, he does not say definitively that there is evolution. He does, however, say that it should occur.

Oh. He likely has in mind the "seminal reasons" doctrine of St. Augustine.

As far as I'm aware, St. Thomas doesn't entertain the idea that man evolved from some pre-existing species. He seems to say the exact opposite.

http://newadvent.org/summa/1091.htm

ST I, q. 91. Article 2 seems pretty clear. His question is whether God produced man's body through the instrumentality of secondary causes. He answers in the negative, saying that God created it directly. He has in mind the instrumental causality of the angels and of the stars and planets, but I think that the general thrust of his claim is that God directly fashioned man from the slime of the earth.

You are free to disagree, of course. I just think that he's right.

[Mega City 5]

Are you saying that it's possible to not be correlational and also not causal?

I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a very simple question.

How have the experiments proven causality?

[Harkback Union]

I think its about time we started a new thread called Philosophical Confusion...