Moving From Pseudoscience To Actual Science

[exchemist]

It includes things like astrology and homeopathy which claim to have a scientific background but which can show no evidence that they work. Not sure about UFOs. They certainly exist, because they are flying, they are objects, and they are unidentified. Anything else is just conjecture.

Also includes "Intelligent Design" and all other variants of creationism, as these ideas rely on an untestable notion of a creator with miraculous powers, whose effects are by definition impossible to predict. 

[current]

Also includes "Intelligent Design" and all other variants of creationism, as these ideas rely on an untestable notion of a creator with miraculous powers, whose effects are by definition impossible to predict.

 

What about evolution is possible to predict ?

 

I'm not an ID proponent but at the same time , when plants can for example produce a fight against insects one must think upon , how can they do this without some form of inherent intelligence .

[Maine farmer]

 

 

To me some ideas have merit , some don't . but who is the judge ? 

 

I watch a doc. on Russian rocket engines . their engines , after much research , trial and error . ended up with 25% more thrust than the American rocket engine , and at the same time was a smaller engine . the American scientists , recently , thought that the engineering of the rocket by the Russians was impossible . 

 

Nasa bought 100 engines of the Russian design . 

 

 

I saw that documentary also.  There was absolutely nothing "pseudo" about the Russian rocket science.  What they did was just extremely tricky to get right, and they spent a lot of money and had some really big explosions along the way.  Remember also in that documentary that they spoke of how the Soviets had no regard for the safety of their cosmonauts and many died and were erased from the official history.

[A-wal]

What about evolution is possible to predict ?

That it will produce a balanced environment with each species adapted to its surroundings, a balanced environment until an intelligent species too successful for its own good comes along to ruin it at least.

 

I'm not an ID proponent but at the same time , when plants can for example produce a fight against insects one must think upon , how can they do this without some form of inherent intelligence .

Through random mutation and natural selection, same as any other trait of any other living thing.

 

 

Crap, I never did reply to Ratch's post, I'll do it tomorrow. No rush, he's been banned now for having the nerve to have an opinion that contradicts the consensus view.

[Maine farmer]

What about evolution is possible to predict ?

 

I'm not an ID proponent but at the same time , when plants can for example produce a fight against insects one must think upon , how can they do this without some form of inherent intelligence .

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821-000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolutions/

[current]

I saw that documentary also.  There was absolutely nothing "pseudo" about the Russian rocket science.  What they did was just extremely tricky to get right, and they spent a lot of money and had some really big explosions along the way.  Remember also in that documentary that they spoke of how the Soviets had no regard for the safety of their cosmonauts and many died and were erased from the official history.

Never listened to anything about the Soviets having no regard for the safety of their cosmonauts . And I watched the doc. twice.

 

American rocket engine scientists didn't believe that the Russian rockets were possible and the Russian politburo cancelled the program .

[A-wal]

They actually used to think that it was impossible to for rockets to work in space because there's no air to push against. When one scientist said it was he was ridiculed with all the usual 'crackpot crank who doesn't even have a high school level understanding' nonsense and of course it snowballed with others that wanted to sound clever and trusted the 'real' scientists all weighing in, until he was proved right, then they all just kept their mouths shut. :) Scientists are so funny at times.

[current]

They actually used to think that it was impossible to for rockets to work in space because there's no air to push against. When one scientist said it was he was ridiculed with all the usual 'crackpot crank who doesn't even have a high school level understanding' nonsense and of course it snowballed with others that wanted to sound clever and trusted the 'real' scientists all weighing in, until he was proved right, then they all just kept their mouths shut. :) Scientists are so funny at times.

Scientists have flaws , egos etc.

 

And THAT is what lies behind this " pseudoscience " thing .

 

Sure some theroies are way out there .

 

But many sound theories are just plane ignored because they simply can't or won't , try to understand them .

 

A classic example is in the Cancer research .

 

Warburg back in the 20's or thirties had the idea that cancer is a metabolic problem . He was totally ignored .

 

Nowadays cancer research is coming around to the metabolic dysfunctional cause of cancer.

[JMJones0424]

What about evolution is possible to predict ?

 

I'm not an ID proponent but at the same time , when plants can for example produce a fight against insects one must think upon , how can they do this without some form of inherent intelligence .

If evolution wasn't capable of producing predictions, then it would be nearly useless as a scientific theory.  A plant does not, nor does it need to, possess some form of inherent intelligence in order to defend itself against an insect.  It seems to me you are confused in thinking that one organism can adapt to its environment, which is not what is claimed by evolution.  Instead, a population of organisms adapt to their environment as a group over multiple generations.

 

In your example, say a new insect pest wrecks havoc on a standing population of plants.  Some portion of the existing plants are able to resist the insect's effects to some varying degree.  (If they all succumb, then they all die and there can be no evolution).  Some plants respond very poorly to the insect, and the reduced number of their offspring that carry the genes responsible continue to do likewise.  This portion of the population over time makes up a smaller and smaller percentage of the group.  Other plants are slightly better equipped to deal with the insect.  The offspring of these plants are more likely to reproduce and produce offspring that carry their genes.

 

This is precisely the kind of predictions that evolutionary theory is able to make, and this is a prediction that can easily be shown to be true in many instances.  None of this requires any intelligence whatsoever.  Evolution is simply the change in population groups over generations.

[current]

If evolution wasn't capable of producing predictions, then it would be nearly useless as a scientific theory.  A plant does not, nor does it need to, possess some form of inherent intelligence in order to defend itself against an insect.  It seems to me you are confused in thinking that one organism can adapt to its environment, which is not what is claimed by evolution.  Instead, a population of organisms adapt to their environment as a group over multiple generations.

 

In your example, say a new insect pest wrecks havoc on a standing population of plants.  Some portion of the existing plants are able to resist the insect's effects to some varying degree.  (If they all succumb, then they all die and there can be no evolution).  Some plants respond very poorly to the insect, and the reduced number of their offspring that carry the genes responsible continue to do likewise.  This portion of the population over time makes up a smaller and smaller percentage of the group.  Other plants are slightly better equipped to deal with the insect.  The offspring of these plants are more likely to reproduce and produce offspring that carry their genes.

 

This is precisely the kind of predictions that evolutionary theory is able to make, and this is a prediction that can easily be shown to be true in many instances.  None of this requires any intelligence whatsoever.  Evolution is simply the change in population groups over generations.

Sure

 

But how do the plants that evolve come to the conclusion on how to deal with any insect ?

[JMJones0424]

They don't.  All a plant does is live and reproduce.  If it deals with an insect well, then it reproduces more than others that deal with an insect poorly.  At no time does a plant come to any conclusion on how to do anything.  The individual plants are not evolving.  The kinds of plants that exist in the population is what is evolving over generations.

Edited March 17, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

 

I see

 

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/

[JMJones0424]

No, I'm not sure that you do, as the article that you linked doesn't at all address your false claim that you made.  If plants are able to communicate with each other, then this is just one of the various different reasons why individuals may be more or less capable of repelling an insect.  This does not indicate intent by the plant any more than a mercury switch thermostat intends to maintain a specific temperature.  What I would like for you to see is that your premise is false because individuals do not evolve.  Populations of individuals evolve over generations due to their relative reproductive success.  This is what evolution is.  This is a powerfully useful and predictive theory.  To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

Edited March 17, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

No, I'm not sure that you do, as the article that you linked doesn't at all address your false claim that you made. If plants are able to communicate with each other, then this is just one of the various different reasons why individuals may be more or less capable of repelling an insect. This does not indicate intent by the plant any more than a mercury switch thermostat intends to maintain a specific temperature. What I would like for you to see is that your premise is false because individuals do not evolve. Populations of individuals evolve over generations due to their reproductive success. This is what evolution is. This is a powerfully useful and predictive theory. To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

Did evolution predict or even could it predict the communication between plants ?

 

Not .

 

To ignor the evidence from the site is typical closed minded thinking .

 

Oh by the by , there is more than one site about this , plant to plant communication .

Edited March 17, 2017 by current

[current]

 

Another site

 

http://mobile.the-scientist.com/article/38727/plant-talk

[JMJones0424]

Of course there is more than one site about this.  Plant communication is not new.  It is but one of many means that plants have available to them to survive.  I know of no prediction any scientist made prior to this discovery, no.  However, evolutionary theory does not say that such a thing could or couldn't take place.  And this is where you are woefully conflating things.

 

If a species of plant is able to communicate with others that it is under attack by an insect, then this is an evolutionary advantage.  A prediction made by evolutionary theory is that if the value of this ability allows individuals to be more successful at producing offspring than other individuals that don't have this ability, and if this ability doesn't adversely affect other things, then we would expect, over time, that the majority of individuals in this population group to be able to communicate when this insect attacks.

 

I am not ignoring evidence.  I am asking you to examine the false premise you presented, that this site does not in any way support.

 

 

EDIT: To be clear, your false premise was two-fold.  First, you claimed "What about evolution is possible to predict ?" Then you claimed that "when plants can for example produce a fight against insects one must think upon , how can they do this without some form of inherent intelligence ."

 

There are many predictions that can be made and tested by evolutionary theory.  I have given one in this response.  There is no reason to believe that plants evolve due to some sort of inherent intelligence, because plants do not evolve.  Populations of plants evolve over generations.  This is the distinction I would like you to understand.

Edited March 17, 2017 by JMJones0424

[current]

Of course there is more than one site about this. Plant communication is not new. It is but one of many means that plants have available to them to survive. I know of no prediction any scientist made prior to this discovery, no. However, evolutionary theory does not say that such a thing could or couldn't take place. And this is where you are woefully conflating things.

 

If a species of plant is able to communicate with others that it is under attack by an insect, then this is an evolutionary advantage. A prediction made by evolutionary theory is that if the value of this ability allows individuals to be more successful at producing offspring than other individuals that don't have this ability, and if this ability doesn't adversely affect other things, then we would expect, over time, that the majority of individuals in this population group to be able to communicate when this insect attacks.

 

I am not ignoring evidence. I am asking you to examine the false premise you presented, that this site does not in any way support.

 

 

EDIT: To be clear, your false premise was two-fold. First, you claimed "What about evolution is possible to predict ?" Then you claimed that "when plants can for example produce a fight against insects one must think upon , how can they do this without some form of inherent intelligence ."

 

There are many predictions that can be made and tested by evolutionary theory. I have given one in this response. There is no reason to believe that plants evolve due to some sort of inherent intelligence, because plants do not evolve. Populations of plants evolve over generations. This is the distinction I would like you to understand.

Oh I understand .

 

But what I would like you to understand is that communication between plants is beyond simply evolution over generations . To communicate , on any level , with another plant is awareness of the other .

 

And THAT is what evolution could never predict , because it would never , until now ,think that it would be possible .

 

Take the time to think .

Edited March 17, 2017 by current