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

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.
>>
>>
>>>>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. 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.
>>
>>
>>>And "seeing" atoms is not "just as much" based on inference as dino
>>>arms turning into wings.
>>
>>Why do you say so?
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>>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"? 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.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
> And you challenged me when I said you didn't think there was any difference.
> In other words, if there is no difference, they are the same.

You are confused. I didn't challenge you on what you think. I don't
actually know what you're referring to here, so perhaps you could quote
your statement and my reply, and I'll set you straight.

>>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.
>
> This is the "core" of your argument, that everything reduces to inference.
> The problem with that, as I have already tried at length to get you to see
> using gravity as an example, is that gravity does not discriminate between
> those who have different inferences, below or above the level of conscious
> attention. The bowling ball will hit you on the head regardless of what you
> think gravity is.

Yes, and you love that thought, don't you? But it has nothing to do with
whether our observation of the bowling ball is an inference or not. I
think you have some connection in your head between "inference" and
"untrue" or "unreliable" that just isn't there. Inference can be a
powerful tool that, given the proper data, can get you as close to truth
as can be got. As with the bowling ball.

> The observation that in a certain environment, stuff will
> fall down, and it works the same each time an observation is made. I believe
> you simply want to hide from direct observation, or to reduce it to
> inference, which is reasoning that cannot be tested with the same result
> time after time, because you are aware that is the case with historical
> inferences based on other inferences based on evolutionary inferences.

I am aware of no such thing. Inferences can indeed be tested, and I have
no idea why you think they can't.

>>To avoid the ambiguity it generates, 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.
>
> If you mean when atoms were in a "black box"? No, we could only say we were
> sure *something* was in the black box, John.

I'm afraid I don't know what the "black box" thing means. When were
atoms in a black box? More to the point, can you tell me when we first
"observed" atoms (either by time or nature of event) and when we first
were confident that atoms existed? Are they different times?

>>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.
>
> I think I have. We have directly observed atoms, we have only inferences, or
> reasoning, to support a dino arm turning into a wing.

Until you actually explain the difference between direct observation and
inference, this communicates nothing.

> And because we can
> only ultimately infer our own existence as being in some universe with
> natural laws as opposed to being in some aliens artificial fish tank, does
> not minimize that fact. And it is a fact, John. We do not have the ability
> to travel in time and "see" what you claim happened. You think the inference
> is valid, others do not. No one denies or can deny the fact of gravity. The
> proof's in the bowling ball.

Actually, there are people who deny the fact of gravity. Have you ever
heard of Immanuel Velikovsky? All this does no good for you, I'm afraid.
You seem to think that the difference between fact/observation (the two
seem synonymous to you for some reason) and inference is deniability or
assurance, or possibly sight. It's not clear which is your actual
definition. At any rate, none of them make sense.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Shallow thoughts on evolution and creationism.
    ... Theory of Evolution is there to prove evolution occurs, ... That would be like thinking the Theory of Gravity is there to prove ... an inference. ... But that's not because it's some kind of direct observation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I have studied evolution for years
    ... Generally, when I ask you for clarification, you don't clarify. ... >>>counter is an inference, then make your case. ... >>>knowledge of alpha particles to say what a geiger counter detects, ... > detection and measurement of radioactivity as a direct observation by the use of a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins answers questions - reads hate mail
    ... On 25/11/2010 00:53, John Harshman wrote: ... in allele frequency in a population, ... then every strong inference is direct observation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Heres a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit
    ... >>>electron microscope. ... > In particular those who claim things are "just inference" without ... Which somebody needs to address if they dismiss evolution ... direct observation vs. inference? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I have studied evolution for years
    ... so alpha particles are not directly observable using a geiger ... >> not directly obserbable using a geiger counter. ... We started out with observation vs. inference. ... >>>direct observation, indirect observation, and inference. ...
    (talk.origins)