Latest on the Loch Ness Monster... (1 Viewer)

[Max Leung]

Hmmm his discussion reminds me of what one scientist said about other scientists arguing about evolution...nearly all scientists accept evolution as a fact, but argue heatedly about how evolution occurs. For example: does evolution go through phases of punctuated equilibrium or is it only a slow gradual process?

Uh...something like that. Yeah.

 

[Steve_Tk]

Latest news on Nessy. Apparently they can't find it in the lake sometimes because it can fly, and that's how it gets it's food, flying to Africa to eat elephants. Who would have thunk it? There are some pictures of course that prove everything.

 

[Hunter P]

great, now this nessie thread is going to debate evolution.thanks, max.

 

[Kevin M]

Cripes....what the hell was my diet consisting of back then?
Sorry, I was clearly having a bad day.....I still believe in what I was saying but I think I could have put it a little more calmly. :b

 

[Max Leung]

Kevin, you're just mellowing out in your old age.

 

[Kevin M]

.....whippersnappers......

 

[Max Leung]

Speaking of which, the picture of the giant squid in that other thread kicked arse! Now if only someone would do the same in Loch Ness...

 

[BrianW]

Black holes were indeed predicted by theory decades before their effects were ever observed by astronomers. They were not contrived to explain an observed phenomenon, thus becoming a "self-fulfilling" or "self-defining" law of nature. The fact that we can now confirm what the theory long ago predicted regarding black holes is what gives the theory its credibility.

And that's the important difference between a proper theory and a simple claim. Any theory that is worth considering will assert heretofore unobserved consequences that are ultimately testable, even if you do not yet have the tools to perform the tests.

A simple claim, on the other hand, asserts only itself, and is tautological only to the extent that direct proof of its single assertion is attainable.

So find another analogy if you must. But you won't find a decent analogy with any theory that has had the wherewithall to undergo the scrutinity of the scientific method, even if it was ultimately proven to be false.

 

[Paul Padilla]

Perhaps this is buried in William of Ockham's actual texts, but my understanding of the various versions of this principle merely suggests refraining from making more suppositions than absolutely necessary. Assuming Nessie does or does not exist would seem to go against this.

 

[Kevin M]

Occam's Razor would probably go something like this (kind of)...
what is most likely, A: that a 1 to 2 ton creature is living in lock ness without the apparent need to reproduce and in an environment that has been proven to not have enough resources to sustain one of these creatures let alone a family of them,
or B: it never existed to begin with and people have merely been attributing reality to what they want to believe is there out of a sense of superstition and/or childlike wonder rather than with boring old logic.



..or C: it's Shelly Winters.

 

[MarkHastings]

Speaking of Nessy:
http://www.toilette-humor.com/mpeg/Toyota-ad.mpeg