Re: Here's a possibility,but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit

"Glenn" <glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:glennsheldon-ETRMe.338$ZE2.754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:XHQMe.327$GV7.292@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>> > "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:HmPMe.319$GV7.138@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >>Glenn wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >>>message news:O5MMe.275$L03.214@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>MitchAlsup@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>So, as your extract so correctly describes, what you are seeing
>> >>>>>>is a three-diminensional plot of the charge cloud around atoms,
>> >>>>>>not the atoms themselves.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>How is this any different than seeing a terrmite mound from 100
>> >>>>>feet away? Sure, you can see the mound, but can you see any of
>> >>>>>the terrmites? (e.g. interior detail)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Hint: this is not equivalent to seeing clouds, or looking
>> >>>>>>through a microscope.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Lets say you could isolate a single atom and hold it in place
>> >>>>>for
> some
>> >>>>>kind of observation. In any event, you could not use the part of
>> >>>>>the
> EM
>> >>>>>spectrum where the eye is sensitive because the wavelenght of
>> >>>>>this spectral band is too large to 'resolve' an atom.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Likewise, the STMs have an 'observation' tip that is too large
>> >>>>>to 'resolve' interior detail in the atom but perfectly capable
>> >>>>>of observing whether they are present, absent, or in some
>> >>>>>regular
> orderly
>> >>>>>pattern, or not.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>High energy partical physics experiments (accelerators and
>> >>>>>storage rings) have the necessary energies and can and do make
>> >>>>>observations
> of
>> >>>>>atoms and the nucleus within, and indeed the protons and
>> >>>>>neutrons
> that
>> >>>>>compose the neucleus, and the quarks that make up the protons
>> >>>>>and neutrons.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>To say that we have not looked at atoms or inside an atom is
> foolhardy!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>To say that we have requires an expansion of the meaning of
>> >>>>"looked".
> I
>> >>>>don't mind that. But then using that meaning, we have also seen
> theropod
>> >>>>forelimbs transform into bird wings.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>That's your argument?
>> >>
>> >>It's certainly a brief statement of my contention.
>> >
>> > Unsupported in the thread as well.
>>
>> I could give you a few references. The actual evidence is a bit long
>> to consider in detail. The short answer is that for any difference
>> you would care to name between your average theropod and your average
>> bird, there is a series of fossils with intermediate states. And
>> these fossils fit together into a good nested hierarchy.
>
> What you regard as "intermediate" can not be used as evidence for your
> contention that there are intermediates, John.
> Here's a series: unicycles, automobiles. The short answer is to show
> your evidence, not your inference.
>>
>> >>>>The point of bringing up atoms is
>> >>>>to dispose of Pagano's silly dichotomy between "direct"
>> >>>>observation
> and
>> >>>>inference. Seeing existence of atoms is based on inference just
>> >>>>as
> much
>> >>>>as is seeing macroevolution. Macroevolution is on just as firm a
>> >>>>basis as atomic theory. Going from tracks in a bubble chamber to
>> >>>>atomic
> theory
>> >>>>is exactly the same process as going from Archaeopteryx and his
> friends
>> >>>>(or from the genomes of living species) to common descent. The
>> >>>>only difference is that Pagano doesn't think the existence of
>> >>>>atoms
> conflicts
>> >>>>with his bible.
>> >>>
>> >>>You've disposed of nothing yet except for your reputation, John.
>> >>>Seeing macroevolution does not evidence that you have seen dino
>> >>>arms turn into wings.
>> >>
>> >>It was the other way around. Seeing dino arms turn into wings is
>> >>macroevolution.
>> >
>> > Er, no, it is an inference of assumed historical events. It's a
>> > *claim* that "macroevolution" occured.
>>
>> Whatever. I don't want to get into quibbling over words. I guess I
>> don't know what you meant by "seeing macroevolution" in that
>> instance.
>
> "Seeing" is only relevant as *observation*, John, not as inferences
> based on observations.
>>
>> >>Of course I use "seeing" in the same sense that we "see"
>> >>atoms, i.e. we infer their existence based on the evidence they
>> >>leave behind.
>> >
>> > That would be indirect observation, not inference.
>>
>> Ah, now we have three conditions: direct observation, indirect
>> observation, and inference. Please explain the differences among all
>> three so that we may decide in any particular case.
>
> How many times will you ask after being told?
>>
>> >>>And "seeing" atoms is not "just as much" based on inference as
>> >>>dino arms turning into wings.
>> >>
>> >>Why do you say so?
>> >
>> > Unlike your argument, I explained mine below. You might look up
> "repeatable"
>> > as well.
>>
>> I look forward to reading your explanation. Let's see if one is
>> really there. [Looking down, I find that, sadly, there is not.] Why
>> should I look up "repeatable"?
>
> Because facts are, unlike inferences. Reasoning is not the same as
> having a bowling ball fall on your head, John. You can provide any
> reason you want, and I might not be able to argue or refute it, but
> the one thing you can not argue with or refute is the fact that a
> bowling ball fell on your head.
>>
>> >>>You surely are aware that is correct, yet your
>> >>>arguments often digress into personal observations of others,
>> >>>confusion
>> >
>> > of
>> >
>> >>>terms, strawmen. I especially like the "everything is inference"
>> >
>> > argument of
>> >
>> >>>last resort. Had a creationist claimed that observation is a
>> >>>process
>> >
>> > limited
>> >
>> >>>to seeing with the naked eye, you would have undoubtedly laughed
>> >>>and
>> >
>> > seen an
>> >
>> >>>opportunity to excercise your skill at "refutation". Evolutionists
> think
>> >>>they can change or specify word meanings to support their specific
>> >
>> > beliefs,
>> >
>> >>>but so far that hasn't seemed to convince anyone except for the
>> >>>true believers of evolution, which is why Tracy's and Richard's
>> >>>claims were
>> >
>> > not
>> >
>> >>>challenged, and why Mitch's, Tony's and my assertions are. It has
> little
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> >>>nothing to do with word meanings, it has everything to do with
>> >>>your
>> >
>> > belief,
>> >
>> >>>and the challenges to those beliefs. This is why you would be
>> >>>liable to resort to claiming that even direct observations are
>> >>>only or "just as
>> >
>> > much"
>> >
>> >>>inferences as any other inference. Observation is not something
>> >
>> > exclusive to
>> >
>> >>>the naked eye, or to optic enhancement of what our eyes see. The
>> >>>sky is
>> >
>> > blue
>> >
>> >>>is a direct observation? No, it is a personal observation, not a
>> >>>direct *measurement or detection* of an event, process, object or
>> >>>attribute.
>> >
>> > There
>> >
>> >>>is a whole slew of references to "direct observation" in the
> literature,
>> >>>including the subject of atoms, just a couple of which would make
>> >>>you
>> >
>> > look
>> >
>> >>>like a fool if read.
>> >>
>> >>Ah, finally a substantive claim in all the verbiage. Please cite
>> >>something that would make me look like a fool if read.
>> >
>> >
>> > I have several. But why should I? You are the one with the
>> > extraordinary claim implying that all inferences are equal, and
>> > downplay direct observation to suit your agenda.
>>
>> I make no claim that all inferences are equal. And if you don't care
>> to back up your statements, that's your decision.
>
> Sure you did, I inferred it. See how that works? You made certain
> statements and intimations, and I linked them together. We can argue
> about what you actually have said, but we can't argue that you said
> certain things.
>
>>
>> >>>Inferences are not direct observations, and vice versa,
>> >>>if the words are to have any useful meaning, John. Direct
>> >>>observations
>> >
>> > are
>> >
>> >>>*facts*, John, not inferences or theories. Direct observations are
>> >>>what "prove" the existence of things, and atoms have been "proven"
>> >>>to exist,
>> >
>> > by
>> >
>> >>>direct observations. Although science may not be yet able to claim
>> >
>> > direct
>> >
>> >>>observations of certain subatomic structures or objects, science
>> >>>can
>> >
>> > "see"
>> >
>> >>>atoms, just as you can "see" fossils, or clouds, or cells. That
>> >>>you
>> >
>> > cannot
>> >
>> >>>"see" every part of a cell (atoms) does not mean that cells are
>> >>>not
>> >
>> > directly
>> >
>> >>>observed. You can't even tell me everything a cell is comprised
>> >>>of, yet
>> >
>> > I
>> >
>> >>>doubt you would claim that a cell is not directly observed.
>> >>
>> >>Your charming naivity on the subject of epistemology is noted. What
>> >>exactly, would you say, makes the difference between "directly
>> >>observed" and "inferred"?
>> >
>> > That you appear not to see a difference is not my problem. You need
>> > to
> show
>> > your reasoning.
>>
>> I believe I did. You don't seem to be supporting your claim that
>> there is a difference, but that's your decision.
>
> If you claim to have shown your reasoning for the difference between
> directly observed and inferences, I missed it in all your questions
> and avoidances of answering questions.
>>
>> >>I think your need to use quotes around "see" suggests
>> >>that you may have some intimation of this. But at this point,
>> >>perhaps you could explain exactly what distinguishes direct
>> >>observations from inferences, and how to tell which you have in any
>> >>particular case. Be careful to do it non-circularly; no defining
>> >>"direct observation" as something that's observed directly.
>> >
>> > Excuse me for butting in on your little one man game here, but it
>> > seems
> to
>> > me that you should be responding to my claims instead of asking a
>> > bunch
> of
>> > questions with your nose sticking out till it looks like it'll fall
>> > off.
>>
>> I am responding by asking for clarification. You claim there are
>> obvious and easily determined differences among two (or now three)
>> categories: direct and indirect observation, and inference. I don't
>> see them, and would like to know what they are. Is that such a big
>> thing that you can't do it? Pretty please with sugar?
>>
> You don't see any differences, yet you claim that you don't think that
> inferences are any different, and that you've told us what the
> differences are? Ah, the Harshman's game is afoot...
>
>> >>>I've never seen you actually come out and tell us what direct
>> >
>> > observation
>> >
>> >>>means, contrasted with inference. Perhaps it's too complicated,
>> >>>eh? So science has not directly observed atoms, yes or no?
>> >>
>> >>I think I have. I don't think the difference between direct
>> >>observation and inference actually exists. What we call "direct
>> >>observation" is simply an inference that's been processed below the
>> >>level of our conscious attention -- or even of our ability to give
>> >>it conscious attention. And of course, allied to this, every "fact"
>> >>is a theory too, though not every theory is a fact.
>> >
>> > LOL! We've talked about this before, John. You will likely end up
>> > here disagreeing with everyone else in the world, and somehow you
>> > will think
> that
>> > you have a point. If I drop a ball, it will fall (in a certain
> environment).
>> > Every time. That is not an inference, it is a repeatable *fact*.
>> > The
> direct
>> > observation is not based on inference.
>>
>> So you say, and yet you are consistently refusing to say what the
>> difference actually is.
>
> Bull***. Inference is reasoning, an assumption not based on
> observation.
>
>>I, however, have said what the inference is in
>> every case so far. Here, I'll say that there is a structure of
>> successive inferences. Start with the experience of dropping a ball.
>> You detect that through a whole series of unconscious inferences made
>> by several of your senses to assemble a complete picture of events.
>> The claim that if you drop a ball in the future, it will do the same
>> thing that you infer it to have done before, would seem to be a form
>> of induction, itself an inference. When you say it's a fact, you say
>> that as if a fact can't be an inference, which I deny. This fact in
>> indeed an inference.
>
> Excuse me, but the claim that if you drop a ball in the future it will
> so the same thing is *not* a "fact", nor an observation.
>>
>> >>To avoid the ambiguity it generates,
>> >
>> > What ambiguity?
>>
>> The ambiguity of whether those "photos" of atoms qualify as seeing or
>> not.
>
> John, "seeing" has nothing to do with scientific observation. I don't
> see anything here any more ambiguous than xrays or any other
> technology based on observed behavior.
>>
>> >>let's pretend we're talking about
>> >>this a few years ago, before there were quantum tunnelling
>> >>microscopes, and thence no "photos" of atoms; say 1950. Has science
>> >>"seen atoms" now? Certainly not in any of the usual senses of
>> >>"seen". Yet we still can be sure they exist. Similarly, we haven't
>> >>"seen" a theropod forelimb turn into a wing, but (at least back
>> >>here in 2005) we can be sure that it did. If there's a difference
>> >>here between the way we know there are atoms (c. 1950) and the way
>> >>we know about this particular macroevolutionary transformation (c.
>> >>2005), please explain to me what it
>> >
>> > is.
>> >
>> > John, observation does not mean seeing with our eyes. That science
>> > has increased in technology and knowledge in order to observe
>> > things that we
> can
>> > not see with our eyes does not support your contention that dino
>> > arms
> into
>> > wings have been observed, indirectly or directly, or that somehow
>> > the
> fact
>> > that we have more sophisticated instruments is a sign that direct
>> > observations are "just the same" as an inference based on
>> > observations. Alleged events are *hypothesized*, and *hypothesized*
>> > to be related. Hypotheses and theories are not "observations",
>> > John. They are *explanations* of observations.
>>
>> If that's true, then you will be able to tell me the difference among
>> direct observation, indirect observation, and inference, such that I
>> too will be able to distinguish them properly.
>>
> If you had any intention of actually debating, you would have
> responded to the assertions. You've not got beyond the simple concept
> that direct observations are facts, not inferences.
>
>
>> Sure wish you could fix your wrapping. It's starting to get
>> unreadable.
>>
> I've tried everything. The problem I have is what I get back from you.
>

Fester?

--
Gary Bohn

Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.

.