13 Feb 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou're still confusing evidence and proof. It's impossible to acquire the absolute proof you seem to be demanding, because the only thing you can prove in an absolute sense is a tautology (e.g. "X is either a knife or X is not a knife" - true for any X), and even that requires some sort of axiomatic logical system.
Yes and those classes of phenomena can either be observations or evidence.
But obviously you cannot have evidence without first making observations
(although some do try).
13 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckExplain the 'integration theory'.
Yes and those classes of phenomena can either be observations or evidence.
But obviously you cannot have evidence without first making observations
(although some do try).
Is it based from observation or evidence?
13 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraand yet the fact remains...
You're still confusing evidence and proof. It's impossible to acquire the absolute proof you seem to be demanding, because the only thing you can prove in an absolute sense is a tautology (e.g. "X is either a knife or X is not a knife" - true for any X), and even that requires some sort of axiomatic logical system.
13 Feb 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not trying to justify whether an observation is evidence.
Try to keep up will you?
The question is how can you justify that observations are not evidence, not what proven theories are called.
So try again.
I'm saying that the observation is the predecessor to all evidence and fact.
It's the start of the process.
14 Feb 09
2 edits
For clarity, I think Thequ1ck is confusing "theory" with"hypothesis". A
scientist may observe some phenomenon in nature and put forth an
hypothesis as to exactly how that phenomenon came to be. (S)he would
then go through great lengths gathering information and honestly
evaluate if this information support or disprove the hypothesis (and the
results of any experiments conducted must be reproducable by anyone
with the right equipment). If the hypothesis is supported by evidence
(facts) or if it can be rescued through revisions, it will eventually be
elevated to the status of theory.
In science, a theory is as close to "the truth" as we've gotten. Hope this
post cleared the matter up for anyone who didn't realise the difference
between the usage of hypothesis and theory in science.
14 Feb 09
Originally posted by JigtieCan't we all agree that he's just a very confused person?
For clarity, I think Thequ1ck is confusing "theory" with"hypothesis". A
scientist may observe some phenomenon in nature and put forth an
hypothesis as to exactly how that phenomenon came to be. (S)he would
then go through great lengths gathering information and honestly
evaluate if this information support or disprove the hypothesis (and the
results ...[text shortened]... o didn't realise the difference
between the usage of hypothesis and theory in science.
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThe African's are decendent from Noah's son Ham, who was smitten by God. Sad, but true.😏
Why didn't Africans thrive? What forces disallowed their development
as compared to Europe and Asia?
Why has Africa failed to reveal any technological achievements
(comparitively speaking)?
Why is there such a disparity??? I mean we're talking grass huts
in the face of space shuttles and highrisers yet this is the oldest culture
on earth!
Is it simply a case of grow up and get the fek out of Dodge?
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckDr Watson (of DNA/Double Helix fame) has a few ideas on this matter.
Why didn't Africans thrive? What forces disallowed their development
as compared to Europe and Asia?
Why has Africa failed to reveal any technological achievements
(comparitively speaking)?
Why is there such a disparity??? I mean we're talking grass huts
in the face of space shuttles and highrisers yet this is the oldest culture
on earth!
Is it simply a case of grow up and get the fek out of Dodge?
17 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydHe writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
Dr Watson (of DNA/Double Helix fame) has a few ideas on this matter.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece
I've seen no direct quotes where he says that this is a truth. He seems to be making
a hypothesis based on the observance of IQ scoring techniques.
Why is the colour of skin more or less important than the way in which different
groups interpret information.
Isn't there some kind of subtext in accusing dr Watson of racism when he hasn't
directly said any one situation is better than another.
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckTry reading his complete statements.
He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article26770 ...[text shortened]... tson of racism when he hasn't
directly said any one situation is [b]better than another.[/b]
18 Feb 09
Originally posted by PalynkaThis one seems to be the one that all the fuss was about.
Try reading his complete statements.
‘‘A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so’’.
Sorry for the cut and paste but I think this guy wraps it up neatly
James Watson implied a belief that the uniquely low intelligence of both continental Africans and African-Americans are probably related to familiar genetic causes. This belief is deemed unacceptable to express in public, even in most academic contexts, or hold in private. This is despite the fact that the research evidence in support of this position is stronger than the research evidence that contradicts it. Thus even top scientists like Watson are punished by their peers for holding beliefs that are more scientific and logical, while scientists that hold to less scientific beliefs and illogical arguments are rewarded. This is an embarrassment to science.
http://www.honestthinking.org/en/pub/James_Watson.Inconvenient_truth.Faces_the_consequences.Malloy.htm
18 Feb 09
Personally I'm on the sidelines as to whether there is a social or genetic explanation
to the lower IQ testing results in Africa. I suspect that there is a lot more to
intelligence than pure logic and the test doesn't cover all of these aspects.
But I also think that it should be safe for our scientists to put forward a theory
without the risk of being mobbed.
18 Feb 09
Originally posted by PalynkaSo are you saying that he is not entitled to put forward this theory
Don't you think the fuss might be about this one?
The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.".
even though there is evidence for it? Or are you saying that he was making
a conclusion?