Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[GrandizerII]

List some of them. They probably won't be testable and/or risky.

You've already made up your mind, so why bother? Any prediction I list you will say it's not risky.

I don't see a difference there. Depends on what you mean by "true experiments."

It's not my personal definition. From what I remember back when I was studying psychology, true experiments are typically those types of studies that ensure that the groups being studied are as identical as possible to each other, except with respect to the independent variable(s), best achieved via random group assignments. Then statistical analyses are applied to the groups to determine any statistically significant relationships between the variables of concern. It's just one type of scientific study, and is not the only type that involves hypothesis testing and such.

---

Tiktaalik prediction falsified, yes or no? OF COURSE if it's falsified it's for reasons, no matter what is falsified in any field whatsoever.

Falsified, yes. Risky, no - they had outs.

That's not an out. The falsification, from what I read, is acknowledged. It's just not the theory of evolution (which is really what you're on about) that was falsified.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Risk is not a required part of the scientific approach. It's good scientific practise to minimise risk, same as with most other human endeavours such as engineering, politics, warfare, business etc

[GrandizerII]

Risk is not a required part of the scientific approach. It's good scientific practise to minimise risk, same as with most other human endeavours such as engineering, politics, warfare, business etc

I think alpha male is referring to the ease with which a prediction, if falsified, can destroy a theory like evolution. He seems to think that a good scientific theory should never become too strong to fail with ease ...

[John V]

On risk:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...l#evidence

Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

[GrandizerII]

On risk:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...l#evidence

Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

Which is no different from falsifiability. But that's not what you meant by "risky".

[Amarok]

That's not an out. The falsification, from what I read, is acknowledged. It's just not the theory of evolution (which is really what you're on about) that was falsified.

Indeed one falsified fossil will not take down evolution. But I find it hilarious he cheery picks from talkorgins while ignoring all the stuff that shows evolutionary biology fits the most rigid definition of science

[GrandizerII]

That's not an out. The falsification, from what I read, is acknowledged. It's just not the theory of evolution (which is really what you're on about) that was falsified.

Indeed one falsified fossil will not take down evolution. But I find it hilarious he cheery picks from talkorgins while ignoring all the stuff that shows evolutionary biology fits the most rigid definition of science

To be clear, it was the proposed timeline that was falsified (the earlier end of the timeline for tetrapods). Which, as you said, no big deal anyway, since the theory of evolution can stand even with the proposed timeline being wrong.

Fact is there's just too much solid evidence to refer to when it comes to evolution, it's been put to the test so many times and yet keeps passing them, and multiple independent fields of inquiry all converge to the same conclusion which is evolution. So it's irrational at this point to keep disagreeing with the evolutionary science. You can challenge certain specific details here and there, but evolution broadly speaking has been conclusively established a scientific fact.

[Amarok]

Indeed one falsified fossil will not take down evolution. But I find it hilarious he cheery picks from talkorgins while ignoring all the stuff that shows evolutionary biology fits the most rigid definition of science

To be clear, it was the proposed timeline that was falsified (the earlier end of the timeline for tetrapods). Which, as you said, no big deal anyway, since the theory of evolution can stand even with the proposed timeline being wrong.

Fact is there's just too much solid evidence to refer to when it comes to evolution, it's been put to the test so many times and yet keeps passing them, and multiple independent fields of inquiry all converge to the same conclusion which is evolution. So it's irrational at this point to keep disagreeing with the evolutionary science. You can challenge certain specific details here and there, but evolution broadly speaking has been conclusively established a scientific fact.

Here here

These fools confuse priest who spew gospel . For truth seekers who want to understand

They confuse hearsay and fables by goat herders with a real method to sift fact from fiction

They confuse the people with the method and try to lower science to the level of religion

Absurd

and Indeed a specific timeline was shown false . Which most certainly doesn't challenge any of the central idea's of modern synthesis. And they call the explanation of the phenomenon an "OUT". Also the ignorance of paleontology trying to compare it to a bunch of legends  mixed with the tired blurb "It's historical science "(creationist crap) just makes one sad.

[Edwardo Piet]

What was once an interesting discussion about time has become a thread about telling Alpha Male what a FUCKING IDIOT he is for sounding like a motherfucking creationist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Meh...thread topics tend to veer off in different directions. But only if we let them.